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

[jabcat]

from sbc tomorrow - the comments at the end are also interesting.  My take - they don't understand what "universalism" is that's based on the scriptures and the sufficiency of the cross of Christ and His shed blood.  It seems they believe it to be "all roads lead to God, it doesn't matter what you believe, everyone's off the hook, Buddhist/Muslim/atheist stroll right on in, Jesus' death means nothing", without ever being required to be spiritually reborn and kneel and confess Jesus is Lord. 

1) how many other people in Christendom understand it that way, thus not only rejecting it, but condemning it as satanic and its supporters as unsaved/non-Christian..

2) interesting the case for annihilationism, who believed/believes it, and how as one fellow says, "it's a heresy, but not a condemnable heresy [as opposed to "universalism"]..I can still accept them as Christians".

Mar 01, 2011
Annihilationism vs. Universalism: Acceptable Error or Condemnable Heresy? by Peter Lumpkins
My raising the question concerning The Gospel Coalition's fairly obvious duplicity in describing Rob Bell a heretic for his alleged universalist and/or annihilationist views while theologically cuddling up nice and cozy with Anglican scholar, John R.W. Stott, even though it is common knowledge Stott embraces some form of an annihilationist position concerning the after-life created many defenders who suggested annihilationism, although an error to be sure, hardly meets the "heresy" criteria that universalism does>>>

In fact, I had an email exchange with a TGC advocate who alleged my point was not nearly as potent as I made it out to be. He wrote annihilation is "an error to be sure, but not one that is as serious as universalism." Some commenters on the thread suggested as much:

"From my understanding Bell seems to be leaning towards a Universialist [sic] understanding of redemption, completely opposite of Annihilationism" (//link)

.So, do these men have a well-taken point?  That is, can a wedge be legitimately driven between the degree of error for annihilationism on the one hand and universalism on the other? So much so, in fact, that the former is acceptable error while the latter is condemnable heresy?* If the answer is "yes," then my analogy between Rob Bell and John Stott vanishes.  If the answer is "no," because a wedge is much too harsh of a distinction between the two theological positions to justify one being heresy and the other not, then the question I raised concerning TGC's burning Bell while embracing Stott remains.

My point is simple: I suggest if evangelicals burn Bell for his belief, then evangelicals ought to build a fire for John Stott too.** Why? Both annihilationism and universalism have been treated similarly by theologians.  Both are condemned so far as orthodoxy is concerned, especially Calvinistic orthodoxy.  Schaff wrote, "Everlasting Punishment of the wicked always was, and always will be the orthodox theory."  In many standard theologies, universalism and annihilationism are treated as very close positions--theological "first cousins"--so to speak.

For example, Hodge says,

"....If Christ and his Apostles did not teach that all men are to be saved [universalism], neither did they teach that the wicked are to be annihilated."

.In addition, Charles Spurgeon has some stinging words for those like John Stott who embrace annihilationism.  With his ever-fiery style, he wrote:

"No honest man can be a member of the church meeting at the Tabernacle, and hold annihilationist views, for now and in all time past we have borne testimony to the generally-received doctrine" (Spurgeon's Autobiography, Vol 4, p.129)

.Hence, for Spurgeon, embracing annihilationism was enough to warrant church discipline. Could it be that embracing universalism could muster a yet stronger discipline?  It hardly seems reasonable.

Other citations could be added but what is the real point?  The fact is, there is but a razor's edge difference—even if a razor's edge it be--between the ultimate outcome of annihilationism on the one hand and universalism on the other. This seems easy to illustrate by asking a few basic questions.***

Consider:

•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe in an ultimate afterlife for unbelievers? NO
•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe in endless suffering? NO
•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe in eternal hell? NO
•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe in two future groups of conscious peoples after death? NO
•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe in the traditional view of hell? NO
•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe all people deserve everlasting bliss? NO
•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe all people deserve to be endlessly punished for their sin?  NO
What, then is the substantial difference between the two positions toward the ultimate outcome of unbelievers who die without Christ?  Do not both positions lead to the very same destination?  A denial of the traditional--i.e. biblical--view of eternal torment for unbelievers? If this is so, how is it that one may legitimately drive a wedge between universalism on the one hand and annihilationism on the other, arguing that the latter is acceptable error but the former is condemnable heresy?

For my part, to drive such a precarious wedge is sheer rationalization and looks suspiciously like vested special interests.  That is, John R. W. Stott is well-liked and respected. We accept him even if he theologically errs—it's acceptable theological error.  Rob Bell is not liked and is an emergent misfit. We reject him because he theologically errs—it's condemnable heresy.

So much for keen theological discernment, not to mention loving one's neighbor as one's self.

With that, I am...

Peter

comments after article/blog found here;  http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/03/annihilationism-vs-universalism-acceptable-error-condemnable-heresy-by-peter-lumpkins.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e2014e5f9f378d970c

[Tom]

I'm always amused when somebody accuses me of heresy and expects me to feel bad about it because I'm a happy heretic. Heresy is simply an idea that does not conform to church doctrine, but church doctrine does not conform to the word of God.

[VineBranch]

Personally I've never minded being a heretic.  Almost every church in which I've ever sat has eventually called me one.

If I may I would like to re-answer the questions on his list:  not as a church believer, but as a heretic.

•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe in an ultimate afterlife for unbelievers? NO  As someone who believes in UR yes, I do.  I can't speak for the annihilationists.  Maybe we should ask them.  But you got my positions wrong, so I'm not sure I'll take your word for what they believe.

•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe in endless suffering? NO As someone who believes in UR no, I do.  I can't speak for the annihilationists.  Maybe we should ask them. 

•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe in eternal hell? NO As someone who believes in UR no, I don't.  I can't speak for the annihilationists.  Maybe we should ask them.

•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe in two future groups of conscious peoples after death? NO I don't understand the question.  "After Death" has a lot of facets:  could you define the when after death a bit more precisely?

•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe in the traditional view of hell? NO  As someone who believes in UR no, I don't.  I can't speak for the annihilationists.  Maybe we should ask them. 

•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe all people deserve everlasting bliss? NO  As someone who believes in UR yes, I do.  I can't speak for the annihilationists.  Maybe we should ask them.  But you got my positions wrong, so I'm not sure I'll take your word for what they believe.

•Do either annihilationists or universalists believe all people deserve to be endlessly punished for their sin?  NO As someone who believes in UR no, I don't.  I can't speak for the annihilationists.  Maybe we should ask them. 

Lumping people together and then saying they are all the same is not a very logical approach to anything.

Jesus was a heretic:  any Pharisee would have told you that.  So?

[jabcat]

Thanks for the good comments.

On a related note, it's said that universalism was heavily taught by the early church.  Tonight I was reading some things at http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm, and saw quotes by people like Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Pseudo-Barnabas (supposedly an apostle of John), Irenaeus, and Theophilis - all first or second century - where they espoused eternal torment.  One, Tertullian, even claimed that Gehenna was hell - as opposed to what we/I often say, that translating Gehenna as "hell" is a mistranslation, that it's really the valley of Ginnom in Jerusalem.  He says "Gehenna... is a reservoir of secret fire under the earth for purposes of punishment..".  Irenaeus said "eternal fire is prepared for sinners.  The Lord has plainly declared this and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate it."

According to (Mark Minucius Felix, c. 200), "There is neither limit nor termination of these torments. There, the intelligent fire burns the limbs and restores them. It feeds on them and nourishes them. ... However, no one except a profane man hesitates to believe that those who do not know God are deservedly tormented."

One "early church father", Shephard of Hermas seemed to believe in either limited punishment or annihilation.

And then of course, "However, some early church fathers, such as Origen of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, questioned the eternality of hell and the literal interpretation of it as a fiery place.."

It also quoted the more contemporary C.S. Lewis (often cited as a universalist) as saying "Some will not be redeemed. There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this if it lay in my power." -- C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Then a related article quoted major denominations' views, which I think we know is mostly ET, and the only one that didn't state a belief in ET the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (which IMO, in many ways is extremely liberal and unscriptural) by quoting this;  "This hope for the final salvation of humanity and the eternal universal restitution of all things in heaven and on earth ... "

So has anyone really studied the "church fathers' " beliefs who might be able to offer some insight into the above?  How does the whole "most of the theological schools in the first century taught universalism", quoted on this site and many other places, tie into the above quotes?  Helpful info to shed light on this anyone? 

[jabcat]

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/what-did-the-early-christians-believe-about-hell/

This is specific information, and I think we ought to face these things head on and honestly.  I have beliefs, interpretations, and understanding, some information, and have attempted to research it a little.  But I haven't extensively studied church history, and I believe I'm missing something.  Has anyone studied the early church history to the point that you can specifically and factually address this? 

[irenic-inkwell]

from my notebook  (only notes I have on early church fathers)

Augustine of Hippo  354-430 AD

...Thou movest us to delight in praising Thee, for Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.

[redhotmagma]

There is a new book that was just released that is done by a bonafide scholar named Illaria ramelli. It is about UR in the early church. Unfortunately the book costs a lot. But it should yield some very real and sweet fruit for the truth of Gods love.

[WhiteWings]

A lot of fruit can be bought for $328   :Chinscratch:
Without a preview I'm not gonna buy this rather thick book.

[ded2daworld]

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:

[jabcat]

Well, I think that's a good point ded.  In essence, it doesn't matter what ANYONE else thinks if I'm getting what I believe from the scriptures and God's revealing what He wants me to know that's either from those scriptures, or at least not opposed to them.  I do think it's interesting that there's a lot of talk about "the early church" and UR, but from what I've seen in the above, I'm not seeing that evidence.  Maybe it's there and I've missed it by just reading the above information that's cherry-picked?  I don't know.  It seems to me that if 4 of the early 6 theological schools were universalist, there'd be a lot more evidence.    As you said though, it's not determined based on what they believed, especially if what they believed is against the scriptures.  However, I'd still like to see some more about this - maybe I'll just have to dig some more... or maybe someone has really studied it.  We'll see.

[jabcat]

I just saw this in Jock's link in another thread;    http://www.godsplanforall.com/paganoriginofhell


"We can be sure that the early Christians believed in Universal Salvation and Reconciliation, just like Apostle Paul. History confirms that Universalism was the belief of the very early Christians following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The concept of eternal torment in hell is nowhere to be found in the original Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts of the Bible, but it is found in the writings of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. For example, Plato (427-347 BC) discusses the concept of hell in his dialogue 'Gorgias' where he speaks of eternal punishment.

There can be no doubt that belief in eternal punishment in hell was a pagan belief embraced and Christianised by the church in Rome in the early years of the history of Christianity. Consider this quote from The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 12, page 96: Retrieved April 29, 2007.


"During the first five centuries of Christianity, there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked."

It was indeed the Church at Rome which first taught the pagan doctrine of endless punishment of the wicked, under the umbrella of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Latin Church Fathers, Tertullian (160-220 AD), Jerome (347-420 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD), all strongly believed in the doctrine of hell. These early Latin Church Fathers are highly venerated Roman Catholic saints who believed that God's punishment of unbelievers (all those who reject Roman Catholicism) would be in a hell of everlasting torment.

In 382 AD, Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to make a revised translation of the Bible in Latin. Jerome, a Roman Catholic by birth, believed in the doctrine of hell and he produced the revised translation of the complete Bible in Latin known as the Latin Vulgate (circa 405 AD)."

------------
So on one hand it has the info about the early schools, while OTOH it says the church of Rome latched onto the doctrine of hell which had been in early Egyptian circles.  So maybe the theological schools weren't attached to the church of Rome.  Also, maybe many early believers did understand Jesus saving all, while the developing hierarchy began to teach something else? 

[redhotmagma]

The benefit of knowing what the early church believed is more for sharing the True Gospel with others IMO.  The vast majority of us have to rely on other scholars for our information.  None of us read Greek or Hebrew (for the most part), and so we rely on other people to translate that info into English for us.  We can use Strongs concordance to determine what the usage and meaning of the words like aionos and kolasis, but even then we are relying on Dr. Strong to tell us what those words mean (or Thayer, or whoever else is writing the Lexicons). 

In a like manner, the early church actually spoke Koine Greek, and to some extent Hebrew.  And to get a feel of what they thought all those words mean, can lend support to our case.  Thats not to say they have it all correct because everyone has a (biased) worldview that they operate under, including translators, and Dr. Strong.  There is no pure lineage between peoples thoughts and communications.

They had the advantage of living in that culture, that we don't so that adds a little weight to what they say.  But I don't believe that they have any more advantage than us in the HS illuminating the depth of the words written/said.  So in that I agree with Ded that it doesn't really matter what they think, but on the other hand "no prophecy is of a private interpretation", and so we would do well to at least weigh what they had to say, along with all members of the body, so that we can clarify the intent and meaning of what was written. 

[ded2daworld]

You said it more like what I meant than what I said.  :thumbsup:

[jabcat]

The benefit of knowing what the early church believed is more for sharing the True Gospel with others IMO.    There is no pure lineage between peoples thoughts and communications.

They had the advantage of living in that culture, that we don't so that adds a little weight to what they say.  But I don't believe that they have any more advantage than us in the HS illuminating the depth of the words written/said.  So in that I agree with Ded that it doesn't really matter what they think, but on the other hand "no prophecy is of a private interpretation", and so we would do well to at least weigh what they had to say, along with all members of the body, so that we can clarify the intent and meaning of what was written.

I've been thinking about this some more.  Yes, that's touching more on what I'm rolling around in my head.  And that is, I'm wondering if those who lived so close to the disciples/apostles time could have had the ET belief, such as Pseudo-Barnabas who was supposedly a disciple of John of Patmos.  Besides him though, maybe all the other "church fathers" mentioned were a generation or two removed and starting to be influenced by pagan philosophy..curious, and just don't know.   :dunno2:

[marie glen]

I'm always amused when somebody accuses me of heresy and expects me to feel bad about it because I'm a happy heretic. Heresy is simply an idea that does not conform to church doctrine, but church doctrine does not conform to the word of God.

You said that perfectly! Or I guess I should say, I totally agree!  :smile:

[marie glen]

...although I do think very early on the church and church "fathers" began to err and mix in (asJabcat said,T pagan in with truth.. and I would say wandered from the Old Testament view of reality..) That's why I don't bother much with much other than the Bible and study aid books to read along with the books and chapters as I read them, for review and also reading about the chapter right after. I read it helps keep error away.. I'm typing on a phone..how do ppl do this? Lol

[Tom]

Thanks for the good comments.

On a related note, it's said that universalism was heavily taught by the early church.  Tonight I was reading some things at http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm, and saw quotes by people like Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Pseudo-Barnabas (supposedly an apostle of John), Irenaeus, and Theophilis - all first or second century - where they espoused eternal torment.  One, Tertullian, even claimed that Gehenna was hell - as opposed to what we/I often say, that translating Gehenna as "hell" is a mistranslation, that it's really the valley of Ginnom in Jerusalem.  He says "Gehenna... is a reservoir of secret fire under the earth for purposes of punishment..".  Irenaeus said "eternal fire is prepared for sinners.  The Lord has plainly declared this and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate it."

According to (Mark Minucius Felix, c. 200), "There is neither limit nor termination of these torments. There, the intelligent fire burns the limbs and restores them. It feeds on them and nourishes them. ... However, no one except a profane man hesitates to believe that those who do not know God are deservedly tormented."

One "early church father", Shephard of Hermas seemed to believe in either limited punishment or annihilation.

And then of course, "However, some early church fathers, such as Origen of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, questioned the eternality of hell and the literal interpretation of it as a fiery place.."

It also quoted the more contemporary C.S. Lewis (often cited as a universalist) as saying "Some will not be redeemed. There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this if it lay in my power." -- C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Then a related article quoted major denominations' views, which I think we know is mostly ET, and the only one that didn't state a belief in ET the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (which IMO, in many ways is extremely liberal and unscriptural) by quoting this;  "This hope for the final salvation of humanity and the eternal universal restitution of all things in heaven and on earth ... "

So has anyone really studied the "church fathers' " beliefs who might be able to offer some insight into the above?  How does the whole "most of the theological schools in the first century taught universalism", quoted on this site and many other places, tie into the above quotes?  Helpful info to shed light on this anyone?

Despite what "church fathers" or modern church theologians say, Christ didn't speak English. He read Hebrew in the synagogue and probably spoke Aramaic and maybe Greek. So, since Christ didn't speak English, he didn't use the Old English word "hell" used to translate the Greek "hades," literally meaning "unseen." We have the "church fathers" to thank for distorting the concept of "hell" by intentionally mistranslating "Gehenna" as "hell" to distort the words of Christ and perpetrate the lie of torture forever in fire. When Christ spoke of "Gehenna," he referred to Isaiah 66:23,24 not "a reservoir of secret fire under the earth for purposes of punishment."

"And it will come to be, as often as the new moon comes in its monthly time, And as often as the sabbath comes in its sabbath cycle, All flesh shall come to worship before Me, says Yahweh. And they will go forth and see the corpses of the mortals who transgressed against Me, For their worm shall not die, And their fire shall not be quenched, And they will become a repulsion to all flesh." (Isaiah 66:23,24)

The intentional mistranslation of "Gehenna" as "hell" is used to support the myth of "hell fire." The church failed to suppress scripture by killing people with fire, but the church changed scripture to terrorize people with torture in fire forever after they die.

Personally I believe an accurate translation of scripture not the "church fathers" or theological scholars.

I've read the information about the majority of the early ecclesias believing in universal reconciliation. I don't know if that's true, but it seems to make sense because that's what scripture says. They had access to the original manuscripts that hadn't been adulterated by the Roman Empire. The only reason to doubt universal reconciliation is if you don't believe scripture but do believe the "church fathers" and theologians.

"through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens" (Colossians 1:20)

[Tom]

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/what-did-the-early-christians-believe-about-hell/

This is specific information, and I think we ought to face these things head on and honestly.  I have beliefs, interpretations, and understanding, some information, and have attempted to research it a little.  But I haven't extensively studied church history, and I believe I'm missing something.  Has anyone studied the early church history to the point that you can specifically and factually address this?

This is just church propaganda. "Souls live on after the grave" is a lie.

Immortality of the soul is the philosophy of Plato, adopted as church doctrine, that originally came from the serpent's lie in the garden of Eden.

"And saying is the serpent to the woman, 'Not to die shall you be dying'" (Genesis 3:4)

Scripture says the soul dies.

"The soul that is sinning--it does die." (Ezekiel 18:4)

"The soul that does sin--it does die." (Ezekiel 18:20)

Christ alone has immortality.

"He is King of kings and Lord of lords, Who alone has immortality, making His home in light inaccessible, Whom not one of mankind perceived nor can be perceiving, to Whom be honor and might eonian! Amen!" (1 Timothy 6:15,16)

The dead are reposing. As far as their consciousness is concerned, from the moment they die, the very next thing they will know is that they are alive again regardless of how long they have been dead. There is no consciousness in death.

"The living know that they shall die, But the dead know nothing whatsoever." (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

The church uses the lie of immortality of the soul to support its deception of torture forever in fire.

Believers will be immortalized when we are snatched away to meet Christ in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17), and unbelievers condemned to "the second death" will be immortalized when death is abolished at the consummation of the eons (1 Corinthians 15:22-26).

"Lo! a secret to you am I telling! We all, indeed, shall not be put to repose, yet we all shall be changed, in an instant, in the twinkle of an eye, at the last trump. For He will be trumpeting, and the dead will be roused incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality. Now, whenever this corruptible should be putting on incorruption and this mortal should be putting on immortality, then shall come to pass the word which is written, Swallowed up was Death by Victory." (1 Corinthians 15:51-54)

The church says most people will be tortured in "hell fire" forever, but scripture says all will be reconciled through Christ so that God may be all in all.

"through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens" (Colossians 1:20)

"Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing. For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead. For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified. Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence; thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power. For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy is being abolished: death. For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all." (1 Corinthians 15:20-28)

"Out of Him and through Him and for Him is all." (Romans 11:36)

[jabcat]

I've read the information about the majority of the early ecclesias believing in universal reconciliation. I don't know if that's true, but it seems to make sense because that's what scripture says. They had access to the original manuscripts that hadn't been adulterated by the Roman Empire. The only reason to doubt universal reconciliation is if you don't believe scripture but do believe the "church fathers" and theologians.

"through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens" (Colossians 1:20)

Thanks Tom for the info.  So it sounds like you believe that as early as the 160's or so, the Roman Empire/church was already pretty prolific in the distortions/adulterations noted in the quotes above - and probably different than what the "ordinary, everyday" [true] believers believed.  I think that makes sense, but I would like to see some "history" on it.  Maybe Josephus, huh?  It's been awhile since I read much from him.  But if they were already doing their thing by 150, they sure got busy quick.    :sigh:

[jabcat]

P.S.  I understand not caring what they thought or believed.  I for one though have had my curiosity sparked about the early church stuff though, and thanks to anyone with specific info on it.   :thumbsup:

Also, if we/folks in UR are going to say things like "the early church believed" or "4 out of 6 of the early theological schools taught..", and "not until the 4th or 5th century when the XYZ council approved of hell, was hell believed", again I for one am kind'a curious as to where that's coming from.   :2c:

[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 that intentionally mistranslated much of the word of God including the Greek "ekklesia" which should be properly translated "ecclesia." I don't care about anything associated with the word "church" anymore including "church fathers," "church doctrine," or "the creeds of the church." 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. 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.

[Tom]

I think about how history can be distorted. The history of the planet according to evolutionists is completely different than what we read in the word of God. I consider the word of God to be historically accurate, but I'm skeptical of all other history. 

[jabcat]

As I typed my reply and went to post it, I saw your newest post Tom, and I'm much in agreement.  Makes sense.  But here's what I'd already typed.  The more you say though, you're right, maybe the historical (besides Bible) doesn't mean so much.  If that's the case though, generally in UR/Christian Universalist circles, it may leave some of the historical claims made, open to justifiable scrutiny.  I for one would still like to know.  I'll dig more, but I appreciate your perspective - it's helpful.

"OK, so we have two veins perhaps;   what some might call "church fathers", "early church history", etc...the guys I quoted above.  I understand that if these guys can be isolated into their succinct group of "the bad guys of the Roman Church", they wouldn't be anyone to pay a whole lot attention to.

Secondly, there's a group (as I identified earlier, "true believers") that either did or didn't tend to generally believe in ET. 

I would think there'd be some history somewhere on both groups. Maybe there's not much that survived that's extra-scriptural but still historically reliable.  :dunno2:

Here's a related issue as I see it...there's some stated assertions that at least one of these guys, again, as mentioned (Pseudo-Barnabus) had a direct connection with one of the apostles.  Personally, I'm not sure I believe that, as it seems to me there's a gap of time between him and John.  Anyway, does anyone know of any historical information (not "just" Biblical, which I do also consider historical)  from these very earliest believers who weren't part of the Roman church?" 

[jabcat]

It's kind of surprising the ET stuff took hold so quick..or maybe it was partly a carryover from a few centuries B.C.  that just fit their purposes to carry it over, reinforce, and use it.   :Chinscratch:

[Tom]

From what I've read the Romans got the idea from the Egyptians who used it for the same purpose which is to control the people through fear. It's actually spiritual terrorism based on a lie that contradicts everything Christ taught about saving the lost. Some folks may get tired of me always saying it's important to read an accurate translation of the word of God to know the truth, but, if you do, there's no question that universal reconciliation is truth, and torture forever in fire is just something the Roman church deceives folks with by intentionally distorting the word of God. I say the choice is simple. You either believe the church or your believe the word of God. There was a time I was interested in church history, but I suggest you compare everything you read with the word of God to know the truth.