Universalsm: not the majority view of the early church?

[NinjaWizards777]

This was something my worship leader sent to me today...i answered it but I feel like i did a poor job due to my small knowledge on the early church history:

On the history of the church's beliefs about eternal punishment, Im guessing that your benchmarking 500 AD because of the statement in Athanasian Creed about eternal punishment. I'd be hesitant to say that the universalists point of view was the majority doctrine of the church prior to 500 AD. There are several early fathers that I know of that specifically taught eternal punishment to name a few: Ignatious (student of the apostle John), Polycarp, Tertullian (fun fact - he was one of the first fathers to not condone infant baptism), and Irenaeus. One thing to keep in mind is that the early church didn't have a lot of time deal with much other than proving that God had three persons and that Jesus was the son of God. I think that is why baptism really didn't get ironed out until after the reformation in the 16th century

[NinjaWizards777]

this is what i replied, but it sucks because I suck lollololololol:


My point was not to say "no other people taught or believed it" in that time, but you would think (or at least I would think) that if something as terrible as eternal punishment were true, it wouldve been extremly clear from the get go...not somehow just casually made offical like baptisim hundreds of years later. Theres a mass difference in importance between "should be baptize people and should it just be adults or babies too" and somthing such as
"do people go to burn and rot for all time or does God has remedial punishment for all?". If that was truly what Jesus and the apostles were preaching, I would think that would be something abundantly clear right away.

[Doc]

He needs to read JW Hanson's work on the topic, which can be found on the scholar's corner link from the main tentmaker page, IIRC.

[Jerm]

 I'm not 100% certain, but I think your friend may be wrong concerning Irenaeus' and Ignatius' views.  From other things I've read, they were not entirely explicit on their beliefs about hell and the only reason many say they supported eternal hell was because of the use of the words eternal and everlasting punishment found in their writings.  However, since aionios is better translated as age-lasting or age-during, those statements from their writings don't prove a belief in eternal hell.  Again, not 100% sure.  If anyone else out there knows for sure, feel free to make a fool out of me (or simply correcting me would nice as well...)

[Doc]

There's some confusion on what some of the early church fathers held to for the reasons you've mentioned, and others; such as altering what was said in writings via translation and alteration of actual words, and some even privately held to beliefs that they did not reveal publicly.

[NinjaWizards777]

are their any UR books I can read on specifically on the topic?

[Doc]

are their any UR books I can read on specifically on the topic?

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html

And there is also a link to Thomas Thayer's work on the same page.

[chuckt]

what im sure of is that both thoughts were always around, nothing has changed except before ET was made official church doctrine we worshiped side by side, neither one considering the other heretical, not refusing the essembly of the body.

:2c:

inlove
euty

[sven]

are their any UR books I can read on specifically on the topic?

Hosea Ballou - the Ancient History of universalism

and maybe "The Jerome Conspiracy"

and maybe Edward Fudge - The fire that consumes (he is an annihilationist, he maybe shows which ancients hold to that doctrine)

[reFORMer]

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/ChristTriumphant.htm

The above link is to Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin.  Chapters IV and V have much detail about the history of the belief that God will save all.  I don't know why there is no clickable access on the forum page to tentmaker's home page http://www.tentmaker.org where you may avail yourself of other electronic resources.

Another link that has some other resources is Total Love In Christ http://www.tlchrist.info/ 

[Tim B]

From what I've been reading, some early believers believed in annihilation, and other early believers believed in UR. I don't know that there was any believers that held ET. At the very least, as others have said, annihilationists didn't consider universalism heresy and universalists didn't consider annihilation heresy. Either way, ET loses over all!

The question should then become: which doctrine, UR or annihilation, is more philosophically sound and most loving (whether it's loving or not is important, as God IS Love)? I'm gonna have to go with UR. Annihilation still gives God a split personality, that is, he wishes all men to be saved and yet creates people to be annihilated.

[WhiteWings]

Annihilation still gives God a split personality, that is, he wishes all men to be saved and yet creates people to be annihilated.

At least it's far more just than ET.

For me personal: (in the order of what's most likely been thaught in the Bible)

ET: Insane cruel.
Annihilation: Most logical.
UR: Most loving/forgiving

[Doc]

Our pastor gave a definition of heresy several weeks ago. The definition he gave was "any view of God that makes Him less than He really is".

On that definition, I'd say anything less than UR should be considered heresy.   :Whistle:

[Beloved Servant]

I pray, though, That "UR" never becomes religion to anyone.

[Doc]

I pray, though, That "UR" never becomes religion to anyone.

Right on;

As soon as you make a rule out of what God has said, you've lost the power in it, and have become a Pharisee.

I just thought that it was very ironic, that an ET/ES pastor would unwittingly give a definition of heresy that declares his own position heretical.  :laughing7: