Quo Vadis? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Agilaw said:

---

Derm, I'm just seeing this thread, and I'm a little surprised of your thoughts on this one. Hell is a very difficult topic to digest as I see it from my human eyes. One of the biggest revelations in my walk was a very, very detailed study of the word HOLY. It was a literal eye opener in my walk. Separateness/Apartness. Jesus talked a lot about "hell". It seems to be a literal place. What happens there, I'm not exactly sure. The main thing to me seems to be separate from God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. That would be hell - conscious torment to me. As far a conscious "physical" pain and torment, I'm not sure. I do not believe everyone is refined and made new and now with God. That would seem to make Jesus's death meaningless. I choose to believe that Jesus does not want anyone to spend an eternity in a place called "hell". So I strive to share with others the saving grace of my God.

---

It is okay to disagree. This is not a salvific topic. And saints have disagreed on these topics.

I think it all comes down to one's view on atonement and why Jesus actually came. To my knowledge, there are no Bible verses saying Jesus came to save us from hell.

As far as atonement, if you are a penal substitutionary guy then you will more than likely believe in ECT hell. And that view of atonement is fairly recent.

Early Church believed in the Christus Vicot or ransom atonement where God allowed Satan to kill Jesus not knowing that Jesus would rise from the dead. So death, sin, and Satan are defeated.

The character of God is vastly different in these two atonement models. There are more atonement views also. Strongly recommend reading the book I linked. If nothing else, just read the atonement discussion. Discusses all the atonement theories in a very easy to read form.

And also discusses the Jewish view of atonement which was eye opening to me. I had been way wrong at looking how the Jews viewed their animal sacrifices.

---

Jesus came to give us eternal life. That to me means there must be something other than eternal life as an option - hell.

---

I don't believe this necessarily counters a more Orthodox view. I am assuming the disagreement is less on the reality of hell, and more on what actually constitutes "hell". Is it a physical place of eternal torment, or is it a state of being in the presence of God? I believe it is the latter.

---

Agree. And I believe God's presence is "Hell" at firsr for those who reject Him but ultimately all will be made new. God wins.

---

How do you square that with the Gospel passage that says it would have been better had Judas not been born?

---

His refinement will be longer and more severe is how I see it. You may differ.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Agilaw said:

---

Derm, I'm just seeing this thread, and I'm a little surprised of your thoughts on this one. Hell is a very difficult topic to digest as I see it from my human eyes. One of the biggest revelations in my walk was a very, very detailed study of the word HOLY. It was a literal eye opener in my walk. Separateness/Apartness. Jesus talked a lot about "hell". It seems to be a literal place. What happens there, I'm not exactly sure. The main thing to me seems to be separate from God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. That would be hell - conscious torment to me. As far a conscious "physical" pain and torment, I'm not sure. I do not believe everyone is refined and made new and now with God. That would seem to make Jesus's death meaningless. I choose to believe that Jesus does not want anyone to spend an eternity in a place called "hell". So I strive to share with others the saving grace of my God.

---

It is okay to disagree. This is not a salvific topic. And saints have disagreed on these topics.

I think it all comes down to one's view on atonement and why Jesus actually came. To my knowledge, there are no Bible verses saying Jesus came to save us from hell.

As far as atonement, if you are a penal substitutionary guy then you will more than likely believe in ECT hell. And that view of atonement is fairly recent.

Early Church believed in the Christus Vicot or ransom atonement where God allowed Satan to kill Jesus not knowing that Jesus would rise from the dead. So death, sin, and Satan are defeated.

The character of God is vastly different in these two atonement models. There are more atonement views also. Strongly recommend reading the book I linked. If nothing else, just read the atonement discussion. Discusses all the atonement theories in a very easy to read form.

And also discusses the Jewish view of atonement which was eye opening to me. I had been way wrong at looking how the Jews viewed their animal sacrifices.

---

Jesus came to give us eternal life. That to me means there must be something other than eternal life as an option - hell.

---

I don't believe this necessarily counters a more Orthodox view. I am assuming the disagreement is less on the reality of hell, and more on what actually constitutes "hell". Is it a physical place of eternal torment, or is it a state of being in the presence of God? I believe it is the latter.

---

Agree. And I believe God's presence is "Hell" at firsr for those who reject Him but ultimately all will be made new. God wins.

---

How do you square that with the Gospel passage that says it would have been better had Judas not been born?

---

His refinement will be longer and more severe is how I see it. You may differ.

---

I do differ, but enjoy the conversation. Given that a person will eventually end up in the presence of Christ, regardless of the time of refinement; how could it be better that they were never born?

---

I do not know the answer.

---

I appreciate this answer more and more everyday

---

Blue star for you, too.

Lot to unpack with your evolving views on this, doc, and I know your affection for Orthodox theology.

It should be noted that one of the most prominent and formidable Orthodox theologians of modern times, David Bentley Hart, has.....not Catholic views on this. As that, I accept the view hell is a real and lasting place of torment, probably in the earth "non-materially" (different than "spiritually," a term which implies separation from the material).

This would be "willed" by God's perfect justice, and humans sent themselves there by a very deliberate will, meaning a willful desire for separation for the sake of self.

How to reconcile a good and holy God with this?

"The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell" (CCC 1035)

Catholicism teaches that hell is a real possibility. If you die in mortal sin, you go there.

"The Church prays that no one should be lost: 'Lord, let me never be parted from you.' If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God 'desires all men to be saved' (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him 'all things are possible' (Mt 19:26)" (CCC 1058)

So the possibility that God, for whom "all things are possible" may rescue all from mortal sin and thus hell might be empty.

I do not believe that is the case. This is due, in no small part, to the many testimonies of hell, which I believe. For example, YouTube channels Touching the Afterlife, Randy Kay, Almost False.

We can find patterns of such testimonies. And changed lives. God gives us many chances. His justice is perfect and His holiness will never abide unreformed sin.

Redstone said:

---

Lot to unpack with your evolving views on this, doc, and I know your affection for Orthodox theology.

It should be noted that one of the most prominent and formidable Orthodox theologians of modern times, David Bentley Hart, has.....not Catholic views on this. As that, I accept the view hell is a real and lasting place of torment, probably in the earth "non-materially" (different than "spiritually," a term which implies separation from the material).

This would be "willed" by God's perfect justice, and humans sent themselves there by a very deliberate will, meaning a willful desire for separation for the sake of self.

How to reconcile a good and holy God with this?

"The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell" (CCC 1035)

Catholicism teaches that hell is a real possibility. If you die in mortal sin, you go there.

"The Church prays that no one should be lost: 'Lord, let me never be parted from you.' If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God 'desires all men to be saved' (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him 'all things are possible' (Mt 19:26)" (CCC 1058)

So the possibility that God, for whom "all things are possible" may rescue all from mortal sin and thus hell might be empty.

I do not believe that is the case. This is due, in no small part, to the many testimonies of hell, which I believe. For example, YouTube channels Touching the Afterlife, Randy Kay, Almost False.

We can find patterns of such testimonies. And changed lives. God gives us many chances. His justice is perfect and His holiness will never abide unreformed sin.

---

Disagree but that does not mean me or my family is going to hell. And I consider you a friend and a brother in Christ. With different views.

And there are Catholic saints like St. Gregory who agree with me.

And the question always is can man's free will trump God's desires to save all?

I believe God is sovereign.

Cappadocian Fathers conveyed hell as a chosen separation. The Orthodox, IMO, continue this view, minimizing eternal torment. But only some of their theologians would argue for eventual full reconciliation.

So a state of being, a separation, regardless of a time consideration, is reconcilable with the Catechism's summaries. Because separation from the Beatific Vision is inherently a torment.

Redstone said:

---

Cappadocian Fathers conveyed hell as a chosen separation. The Orthodox, IMO, continue this view, minimizing eternal torment. But only some of their theologians would argue for eventual full reconciliation.

So a state of being, a separation, regardless of a time consideration, is reconcilable with the Catechism's summaries. Because separation from the Beatific Vision is inherently a torment.

---

So you are saying that man's free will trumps God's desire to save all?

God, as a Divine Person, is Reason and Order itself, and moves to perfect the human will. This is His holy desire.

Logos moves in both our understanding of time and in each heart.

He is not pure will, an Islamic concept, but Reason and Love and Order. Human will is a gift.

Because without human will, love.....chosen love, is not authentic. Meaning, it does not conform to who God is.

Therefore, to directly address your question, yes.

God is Love, Reason, Order, and dynamic. His sovereignty remains because He is the creator of sovereignty.

Redstone said:

---

God, as a Divine Person, is Reason and Order itself, and moves to perfect the human will. This is His holy desire.

Logos moves in both our understanding of time and in each heart.

He is not pure will, an Islamic concept, but Reason and Love and Order. Human will is a gift.

Because without human will, love.....chosen love, is not authentic. Meaning, it does not conform to who God is.

---

I understand all that.

The bottom line is does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all as is clearly stated in Scripture?

I believe God wins.

dermdoc said:

---

Redstone said:

---

God, as a Divine Person, is Reason and Order itself, and moves to perfect the human will. This is His holy desire.

Logos moves in both our understanding of time and in each heart.

He is not pure will, an Islamic concept, but Reason and Love and Order. Human will is a gift.

Because without human will, love.....chosen love, is not authentic. Meaning, it does not conform to who God is.

---

I understand all that.

The bottom line is does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all as is clearly stated in Scripture?

I believe God wins.

---

Did he let Adam and Eve disobey him?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Redstone said:

---

God, as a Divine Person, is Reason and Order itself, and moves to perfect the human will. This is His holy desire.

Logos moves in both our understanding of time and in each heart.

He is not pure will, an Islamic concept, but Reason and Love and Order. Human will is a gift.

Because without human will, love.....chosen love, is not authentic. Meaning, it does not conform to who God is.

---

I understand all that.

The bottom line is does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all as is clearly stated in Scripture?

I believe God wins.

---

Did he let Adam and Eve disobey him?

---

Yes. I am a free will guy. I am talking about eternal stuff.

I just do not think man's free will trumps God's desire to save all.

Yes, in that rather awkward dichotomy, because God is Love, Reason, Order, dynamic, and not pure will as in Islam. Sovereignty remains because He is the creator of sovereignty.

I do not understand any contradiction. Perhaps because I view humans as unique ONLY INSOFAR as Jesus Christ, Logos, God, became a man.

The universe is centered in this God, and we are but one in a line millions of years long - just considering hominids millions.

Homo sapiens are not particularly special.

For such a God, with many cosmic creations, including Adam and Eve before their fall (paradise, connected to the earth but not of it, they were hurled into hominid space / time as penance) ......

for such a God as this, with many members of His family, and so many fallen, including some of the Holy Watchers (in another of multiple falls).......

why would His sovereignty be under threat or contradiction? No.

Redstone said:

---

Yes, in that rather awkward dichotomy, because God is Love, Reason, Order, dynamic, and not pure will as in Islam. Sovereignty remains because He is the creator of sovereignty.

I do not understand any contradiction. Perhaps because I view humans as unique ONLY INSOFAR as Jesus Christ, Logos, God, became a man.

The universe is centered in this God, and we are but one in a line millions of years long - just considering hominids millions.

Homo sapiens are not particularly special.

For such a God, with many cosmic creations, including Adam and Eve before their fall (paradise, connected to the earth but not of it, they were hurled into hominid space / time as penance) ......

for such a God as this, with many members of His family, and so many fallen, including some of the Holy Watchers (in another of multiple falls).......

why would His sovereignty be under threat or contradiction? No.

---

So you believe in ultimate reconciliation?

Because if God is sovereign and desires all to be save which is Scriptural, are there other options?

No. I reject your dichotomy.

Perhaps there are 2 "meta" issues at play here.

First, a view from a reading of Scripture that seems plain. Calvinists in particular are excellent at forming logical conclusions from impressive Scriptural scholarship. The fundamental problem is that the Bible is holy and inspired, yes, but NOT the "word of God." Jesus Christ is the Word of God. The Bible is a holy product, formed over 3 centuries of furious debate, of the Church, and of Church councils. Therefore, read with the Church (Apostolic, or Catholic / Orthodox).

Second, mystery - it is the glory of God to conceal, no? Proverbs 25 is a guide for us here. The holy Bible is not a logician's handbook, but a story of Logos interacting with His creations, told in many ways.

Redstone said:

---

No. I reject your dichotomy.

Perhaps there are 2 "meta" issues at play here.

First, a view from a reading of Scripture that seems plain. Calvinists in particular are excellent at forming logical conclusions from impressive Scriptural scholarship. The fundamental problem is that the Bible is holy and inspired, yes, but NOT the "word of God." Jesus Christ is the Word of God. The Bible is a holy product, formed over 3 centuries of furious debate, of the Church, and of Church councils. Therefore, read with the Church (Apostolic, or Catholic / Orthodox).

Second, mystery - it is the glory of God to conceal, no? Proverbs 25 is a guide for us here. The holy Bible is not a logician's handbook, but a story of Logos interacting with His creations, told in many ways.

---

Fair enough my friend.

Disagree but that is okay.

Well put. The temptation to believe that 'if' God wants to redeem/save someone that He will fail to do so, due to the power/strength of the man's will, is something that I think some 'simplistic' high Calvinists do not really think through. The crutch sometimes used is that those are not 'real people' but 'bots' of some sort, not part of the 'elect' whom God chooses to pursue/redeem/save. And to be fair, when one see's the horrors of this world such as child killers etc. it's easy to see why a crutch is intellectually appealing.

This is where I think reformed theology often goes off the rails vs. the Bible, and what I see as the Orthodox' dogma getting more 'right' but that's a long discussion which leads to a lot of arguments of course.

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

I am a Calvinist even though I wish God would save everybody. I feel constrained by what I understand the Bible teaches. I'm not here to argue that point. In contrast, I don't have a strong position on ECT hell.

The thing is, I think it's dangerous to choose what to believe based on how we wish things were. Annhialationism, universalism, and no-ECT hell positions seem more palatable to me, but I don't want to deceive myself. I want to know and act according to the truth as best I can, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

---

With all due respect, what Scripture supports ECT hell?

To my knowledge, the only Scripture that supports eternal punishment, not eternal fire or destruction, is Matthew 25 46. And the original Greek uses the word kolasis which is translated as punishment although it is usually translated as a pruning or corrective punishment. Timoria is the Greek word for retributive punishment.

And of course, there is a ton of debate on translating anion into eternal rather than of an age like Young's literal translation does.

There is a whole lot more Scriptural support for annihilationism and ultimate reconciliation than ECT hell.

But I know I will not change anyone's mind. To me, it is all about the character of God. As revealed through Christ and His sacrifice for us.

A lot of ECT thinking comes from belief in penal substitutionary atonement which is fairly recent in Christian theology. This is where the wrathful, angry God comes from.

Christus victor/ransom/recapitulation theory of atonement seems to be the predominant view of the early church.

nortex97 said:

---

Well put. The temptation to believe that 'if' God wants to redeem/save someone that He will fail to do so, due to the power/strength of the man's will, is something that I think some 'simplistic' high Calvinists do not really think through. The crutch sometimes used is that those are not 'real people' but 'bots' of some sort, not part of the 'elect' whom God chooses to pursue/redeem/save. And to be fair, when one see's the horrors of this world such as child killers etc. it's easy to see why a crutch is intellectually appealing.

This is where I think reformed theology often goes off the rails vs. the Bible, and what I see as the Orthodox' dogma getting more 'right' but that's a long discussion which leads to a lot of arguments of course.

---

Agree. And I am not fighting that battle again.

dermdoc said:

---

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

I am a Calvinist even though I wish God would save everybody. I feel constrained by what I understand the Bible teaches. I'm not here to argue that point. In contrast, I don't have a strong position on ECT hell.

The thing is, I think it's dangerous to choose what to believe based on how we wish things were. Annhialationism, universalism, and no-ECT hell positions seem more palatable to me, but I don't want to deceive myself. I want to know and act according to the truth as best I can, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

---

With all due respect, what Scripture supports ECT hell?

To my knowledge, the only Scripture that supports eternal punishment, not eternal fire or destruction, is Matthew 25 46. And the original Greek uses the word kolasis which is translated as punishment although it is usually translated as a pruning or corrective punishment. Timoria is the Greek word for retributive punishment.

And of course, there is a ton of debate on translating anion into eternal rather than of an age like Young's literal translation does.

There is a whole lot more Scriptural support for annihilationism and ultimate reconciliation than ECT hell.

But I know I will not change anyone's mind. To me, it is all about the character of God. As revealed through Christ and His sacrifice for us.

A lot of ECT thinking comes from belief in penal substitutionary atonement which is fairly recent in Christian theology. This is where the wrathful, angry God comes from.

Christus victor/ransom/recapitulation theory of atonement seems to be the predominant view of the early church.

---

That was not my point. I need to study this more to reach a conclusion.

I do think it is sometimes easy to let what we want to be true to influence our conclusions. For example, I have a family member who ignores clear scripture because "the God she believes in would not do that or be that way." That god is a being of her own creation. I don't want to fall into that trap.

Election, foreknowledge and predestination are all Biblical concepts.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Election, foreknowledge and predestination are all Biblical concepts.

---

Agree. They always have been. How they are interpreted is the rub.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

The thing is, I think it's dangerous to choose what to believe based on how we wish things were.

---

Modern/progessive "christianity" in a nutshell right here.

---

So is believing what the Early church believed as far as atonement "progressive"?

Or what saints like St. Gregory of Nyssa believed about ultimate reconciliation?

There have always been differences in theology.

I am really curious as what you believe modern/progressive Christianity is?

And wouldn't Reformed/calvinism be considered "modern and progressive" to the Catholic and Orthodox churches?

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

I am a Calvinist even though I wish God would save everybody. I feel constrained by what I understand the Bible teaches. I'm not here to argue that point. In contrast, I don't have a strong position on ECT hell.

The thing is, I think it's dangerous to choose what to believe based on how we wish things were. Annhialationism, universalism, and no-ECT hell positions seem more palatable to me, but I don't want to deceive myself. I want to know and act according to the truth as best I can, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

---

With all due respect, what Scripture supports ECT hell?

To my knowledge, the only Scripture that supports eternal punishment, not eternal fire or destruction, is Matthew 25 46. And the original Greek uses the word kolasis which is translated as punishment although it is usually translated as a pruning or corrective punishment. Timoria is the Greek word for retributive punishment.

And of course, there is a ton of debate on translating anion into eternal rather than of an age like Young's literal translation does.

There is a whole lot more Scriptural support for annihilationism and ultimate reconciliation than ECT hell.

But I know I will not change anyone's mind. To me, it is all about the character of God. As revealed through Christ and His sacrifice for us.

A lot of ECT thinking comes from belief in penal substitutionary atonement which is fairly recent in Christian theology. This is where the wrathful, angry God comes from.

Christus victor/ransom/recapitulation theory of atonement seems to be the predominant view of the early church.

---

That was not my point. I need to study this more to reach a conclusion.

I do think it is sometimes easy to let what we want to be true to influence our conclusions. For example, I have a family member who ignores clear scripture because "the God she believes in would not do that or be that way." That god is a being of her own creation. I don't want to fall into that trap.

---

I completely agree. I am basing my beliefs on Scripture. Not what I want to believe. You can research it just like I have.

To my knowledge, there is only one Scripture that mentions eternal punishment, Matthew 25 46. And the interpretation, as I mentioned above, is not as clear cut as people think.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

And I got into this again and apologize. I do not know what the topics of election, foreknowledge, and predestination have to do with this thread.

Or a discussion of modern/progressive Christianity when it is not even defined.

I will watch baseball for a while. Sorry.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

The thing is, I think it's dangerous to choose what to believe based on how we wish things were.

---

Modern/progessive "christianity" in a nutshell right here.

---

So is believing what the Early church believed as far as atonement "progressive"?

Or what saints like St. Gregory of Nyssa believed about ultimate reconciliation?

There have always been differences in theology.

I am really curious as what you believe modern/progressive Christianity is?

And wouldn't Reformed/calvinism be considered "modern and progressive" to the Catholic and Orthodox churches?

---

I'll just use the term progressive or liberal. I suppose everything in it's day is "modern." And "change" isn't a bad thing obviously.

I would say a general movement away from the original intent (the source being holy scripture), which to be fair, isn't always easy to discern, hence the endless schisms we deal with since forever. Orthodoxy is definitely a piece of the puzzle. I just don't think that because it happened in the first few centuries means that it is bulletproof dogma.

The whole idea of a "reformation" is to bring about change due to problems or abuses.

Do I care about Gregory of Nyssa? Not really. I don't mean that to be disrespectful; he was just a man.

I'd say a modern day example a progressive practice could be lent; as I brought up in an earlier thread, it has been transformed into basically a "choose your own fast" versus the prescribed, traditional way of the early church. Why aren't the early church practices heeded more? What happened to the other fasts observed throughout the year? Now, I do not ascribe to that tradition, but would ask if church tradition is coequal with scripture, how does the evolution of something like that work? I very well could be *******izing that example, but the idea is that something has changed to essentially make it more convenient.

To return to my points above about mystery, and the "meta" Bible issue - only Jesus Christ is the word of God ….

Please remember plenty of Church fathers disagreed about essential matters

https://yankeeathonite.substack.com/p/everywhere-always-by-all

And my personal annoyance, some essential Catholics kept out very justifiable and even essential writings from the canon, ie Augustine
(Check out the Alberino version of Book of Enoch, kindle)

So, on such issues, it's very messy. But what we can say is that the argument for hell being real and crowded is formidable and ancient, AND only using the canon would not be what those closest to Christ would have done. Instead, what does the DEPOSITS of faith indicate? Canon, after all, is from oral tradition.

Read with the Apostolic Church.

Redstone said:

---

To return to my points above about mystery, and the "meta" Bible issue - only Jesus Christ is the word of God ….

Please remember plenty of Church fathers disagreed about essential matters

https://yankeeathonite.substack.com/p/everywhere-always-by-all

And my personal annoyance, some essential Catholics kept out very justifiable and even essential writings from the canon, ie Augustine
(Check out the Alberino version of Book of Enoch, kindle)

So, on such issues, it's very messy. But what we can say is that the argument for hell being real and crowded is formidable and ancient, AND only using the canon would not be what those closest to Christ would have done. Instead, what does the DEPOSITS of faith indicate? Canon, after all, is from oral tradition.

Read with the Apostolic Church.

---

Great read.

My favorite sentence

We are not saved by our correct opinion on Jesus Christ. We are saved by Jesus Christ.

Second favorite

For us, theology is not an academic exercise. We don't learn about Hod by reading books. We learn about Him by experience, by encounter.
We study Him in prayer, in worship, in the faces of our neighbor. We study Him by looking into our hearts, where He has established His Kingdom.