Mark Sanguinetti

Those that teach hellfire for the ungodly may also be convicting themselves to the same fate by their religious views. Notice Matt 7:21-23 below. 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' NIV By these scriptures anyone who does evil may be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. This includes even people with faith enough to confess Jesus, prophesy, drive out demons and perform miracles all in the name of Jesus. So if these openly religiously people are excluded where does that leave the rest of us? By the religion of hellfire and eternal punishment there are no second chances. These people would also go to hellfire to be tortured forever along with the majority of everyone who has ever lived. We all have sin and iniquity of some form. Conceivably with such a strict interpretation, hellfire as eternal torment may be the lot for everyone who has ever lived save the Lord Jesus himself. Fortunately, I don't believe in such an interpretation of scripture. When Jesus says they will not be part of the kingdom of heaven, I associate that with the millennial kingdom at Jesus' return as king over the nations of the earth. For those people who are resurrected to serve Jesus in His kingdom they will be examples of the faith of Jesus himself. The openly religious people who Jesus says will be excluded from the kingdom for their evil works can still receive eternal life at the general second resurrection along with the rest of mankind.

ThousandScreenNames: Thanks for the info. Let's see if I can piece this together then. We have at least one Baptist church in our country that believes in tithing and that Jesus likes to shoot people. Not necessarily in that order. They probably think that in order to convert people you should threaten them, perhaps with financial catastrophe and that people in foreign lands that don't accept Jesus should be exterminated (murdered) to further their version of the gospel. Does anyone else see the similarity to the Spanish Inquisition, circa 16th century America? One question though. Have they or any of their congregation shot any of the locals yet? When did the religious right lose sight of Jesus' words "love your enemies"? Or have they always blown off verses of this spirit?

Abigail: Did you take that photo? Is that photo for real? Or has that photo been photoshoped?

Def, there is no godly reason to your arguments for eternal torment. I have brought in the Old Testament law as a means for resolving this, but you have ignored this. I bring in scriptures showing clearly that there is an end to aion or various ages and you ignore this also. All I can do is pray that God will open your eyes and get you to at least consider the many scriptures that I am sharing. Until that time there is still more material to share for others who want to learn. From Stephen Jones' book "Judgements of the Divine Law", Chapter 1. Tartarus There are three different words in the New Testament Greek that are translated “hell” in the King James Bible. They do not mean the same thing, but nonetheless, they are translated in the same way, because men did not want to make the distinction. The three words are: Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus. Hades is translated “hell” 10 times and “grace” once; Gehenna is translated “hell” 12 times; and Tartarus appears in its verb form, tartaroo (“to cast into Tartarus”) just once in 2 Peter 2:4. Two of these words (Hades and Tartarus) are from the Greek language. The non-Christian Greeks themselves applied these terms in their own way according to their own religious view. We cannot, of course, apply the Greek meaning of these terms to Christianity or to the Bible. Greek Mythology Tartarus in Greek mythology was a place below Hades, reserved for those who had affronted the gods, which was considered to deserve a worse punishment. For example, Tantalus stole Zeus’ ambrosia and was consigned to Tartarus, where he was made to stand in a pool of water. But each time in his thirst he reached out to take a drink, the water would recede from him. There were also trees laden with fruit, but whenever he reached out to pick the fruit, it would recede from him. We get our word “tantalize” from this Greek myth. The Angels that Sinned We ought not to conceive of Tartarus in the way the Greeks defined it, but we must think of it in terms of the place where God confined “the angels that sinned” in Genesis 6:2. This word Tartarus appears only once in the New Testament, and it appears only in its verb form. 2 Peter 2:4 says, 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [Tartarus] and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness. . . . In Peter’s first letter he made reference to these “angels” without actually using the word Tartarus. He wrote in 1 Peter 3:18-20, 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclama-tion to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. We have to make one correction in the NASB translation above. The phrase “went and” in verse 19 is NOT in the original Greek text. It does NOT say that He WENT AND preached, as if to conjure up the image of a circuit-riding preacher. The text actually reads that Jesus was “made alive in the spirit; in which [resurrected body] also He made proclamation to the spirits now in prison.” In other words He was raised from the dead as a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) and given a resurrected body, in which He made His proclamation to the spirits in prison—that is, in Tartarus. His very resurrection (or embodiment) was the proclamation. His resurrection into a physical body made of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39) was the proclamation of His enthronement over all, including the angels that sinned (or “spirits in prison”). It was proclaimed that Jesus is King over all the earth, that all creation was subject to Him, and that He had been given a Name above every name. A few verses later, Peter confirms this in 1 Peter 3:22, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. His resurrection subjected all things to Him, including the angels that sinned. In essence, that is when the proclamation went forth into all the earth and to Tartarus itself that He was Lord of all, that He had been given a name above every name in heaven, in earth, and under the earth (Phil. 2:10). Who Were the Angels that Sinned? The angels that sinned back in Genesis 6:2-4 were called “sons of God” in contrast to the “daughters of men.” This term, “sons of God” refers to spiritual beings that have access to the heavens—in contrast to earth-bound fleshly creatures. Thus we see the “sons of God” standing before God in Job 1:6. In the New Testament the term is used to describe men and women who can “become the sons of God” (John 1:12) through Jesus Christ. Genesis 6:2 also says that these sons of God took “the daughters of men” as wives and produced children by them. The Hebrew word for “men” is awdawm, or Adam, which is the usual word for men or mankind. When the Bible refers to the man Adam himself, it says ha-awdawm, or “the (man) Adam.” The article “the” makes the term specific. Dr. Bullinger points out in The Companion Bible, Appendix 14, “Adam, without the article, denotes man or mankind in general (Gen. 1:26; 2:5; 5:1). With the article, it denotes the man, Adam....” With this in mind, let us read Genesis 6:1, 2, 1 Now it came about, when Adam [ha-awdawm] began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them [Adam and Eve, Gen. 1:27; 5:2] 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of Adam [ha-awdawm] were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Adam and Eve had both sons and daughters. Adam’s daughters were beautiful, and these angels took them as wives. Verse 4 says that they had children by them. Ultimately, the earth was so corrupted by this genetic mixture that God sent the flood to destroy them. Only Noah was found to be “perfect in his genealogy” (Gen. 6:9, literal). God’s motive is given in Genesis 6:3, which reads literally, 3 My Spirit will not distort [aval] the rule of [deen] the (man) Adam, because he also is flesh. . . In other words, though these other spirits (fallen angels) would attempt to distort or turn aside the rule of Adam by their actions, the Spirit of God will not allow this to happen. The flood, then, was designed to thwart these fallen angels in their design. The question immediately arises: How can spiritual beings (angels) have children with physical women on earth? The answer is that all through the Bible we have examples of angels manifesting as men. In Genesis 18 we read that three “men” came to Abraham on their way to Sodom. Abraham fed them, and they prophesied that Sarah would have a child in the following year. Two of them then continued toward Sodom, but one of the “men” stayed behind to tell Abraham of Sodom’s coming destruction. Hence we read in Genesis 19:1 that only two of them actually arrived in Sodom: 1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. . . They had manifested themselves in human flesh and were recognized as such even by the people of Sodom, as the story shows. They even ate with Lot (Gen. 19:3) as they had eaten with Abraham. Angels are said to often appear in human flesh. Other examples include the angel that appeared to Balaam in Numbers 22:31 and another to Manoah and his wife in Judges 13. If spirits have the ability to manifest in human flesh, and if they can even eat food, then it follows that they could also have the ability to have sexual relations with women and even to produce children by them. Of course, they only had this ability after taking human flesh. These angels were called Nephilim, or “giants” in Genesis 6:4. This is the plural form of nephil, “a feller,” or one who cuts others down; hence, a bully or tyrant. The root word is naphal, “to fall.” This is probably the origin of the idea of “fallen” angels. Though Nephilim applies primarily to their actions in cutting down others, it carries this secondary meaning of having been felled by God in the flood. The angels are thus “fallen,” but this is not to enter into the debate about whether or not angels have free will. That is a separate question. If angels do have free will, then they fell of their own free will. If not, then they were caused to fall for purposes known fully by God alone. We must limit our scope for now to the simple assertion that they are “fallen.” The nature of their “fall” in the sense of their disobedience is given in Jude 6, 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. In other words, these angels desired to become flesh and dwell with the daughters of Adam. Why? Because angels are spirits, and they have the ability to manifest in flesh, but what they did not have was a soul. Nowhere in the Bible do we find that angels were given souls. The soul is in the blood, Leviticus 17:11 tells us. Angels do not have blood. They coveted a soul in order to gain authority over the earth, for God made man a living soul (Gen. 2:7) and gave man dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). In that sense, angels “fell” from heaven to earth—but then fell from earth to Tartarus. Jude then relates the fallen angels to Sodom and Gomorrah, where the people “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh” (Jude 7). The term “strange flesh” simply means foreign flesh—that is, in the Biblical sense, forbidden sexual relations or marriages. The angels were not allowed to marry the daughters of men, even as the men of Sodom were not allowed to marry other men in homosexual unions. This is, of course, one of the major social and moral issues facing us today. In the name of liberty we are once again going the way of Sodom. Another intriguing question is the fact that Jesus said the last days would be “as in the days of Noah” (Matt. 24:37). We know that there were Nephilim even AFTER the flood, for Genesis 6:4 says, 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward [Heb. ken, “to set upright; correct”], when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men [Heb. gibbor] who were of old men of renown. So we see that even after God brought correction by means of the flood, there were Nephilim who again took the daughters of men and had more children by them. The Nephilim’s children thereafter usually were called Gibbor, “mighty men,” and Rephaim, from rapha, “to heal, invigorate.” The twelve spies in Israel saw these Nephilim when they spied out the land, and this is what made the people most afraid to enter the land at that time. We read of this in Numbers 13:32, 33, 32 So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the men whom we saw in it are men of great size. 33 There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Gibbor); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight. This verse equates the Nephilim with the Gibbor. Joshua destroyed most of the Anakim in Joshua 11:21, 22, 21 Then Joshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab and from all the hill country of Judah and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua utterly destroyed them with their cities. 22 There were no Anakim left in the land of the sons of Israel; only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod some remained. Some yet remained until the time of David. Goliath of Gath came from this family of Anak, where some of these giants remained. David slew Goliath, and in a later battle Goliath’s brother was killed along with their sons (1 Chron. 20:5-8). If we are living now in the days comparable to those of Noah, then perhaps this may have bearing on the question of UFO’s and so-called “extra-terrestrials.” If these really do exist, claiming to be from other star systems, then the most logical explanation from a Biblical standpoint would be that they are a reappearance of the conditions during the days of Noah. But it is far beyond the scope of this study to continue down that path of inquiry. The Word Becomes Flesh By way of contrast and comparison, in the New Testament the angel Gabriel (representing God) came to Mary (Luke 1:26), and impregnated her by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, 20). She then gave birth to Jesus, the Word made flesh. This was done at the command of God and at the proper time according to the plan of God. So it was done in the lawful manner. It is apparent, then, that the angels who sinned in Genesis had attempted to counterfeit the incarnation of Christ. It was an attempt to usurp authority in the earth, for this was one reason Jesus had to be born through a daughter of Adam. Adam had been delegated dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). He did not subject the world to angels (Heb. 2:5), but rather to “the son of man (Adam).” But the purpose of the fallen angels was to “distort the rule of Adam” (Gen. 6:3) and ultimately to subject Christ, the “Son of Man” to their rule as well. Jesus was the “Son of Adam,” called also the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45). Unlike the angels that sinned, Jesus was willing to pay the price by dying on the Cross, in order to give man immortal flesh. In His resurrection Jesus had a body of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39) but was no longer limited by this new spiritual flesh. He could change at will into a spiritual form and, as it were, “go to heaven.” The purpose of creation was to manifest the glory of God in both heaven and earth. This He achieved in a lawful manner, whereas the angels who tried to do this in Genesis 6 failed because they sinned—that is, they did it unlawfully. And so when He at last triumphed over death itself, His resurrection proclaimed final defeat to the Nephilim. Also, in Genesis 6 the angels’ motive was to subject mankind to their despotic rule. But Jesus’ motive was to set men free by His rule. So first, it is clear from 2 Peter 2:4 that the angels that sinned were put into a prison of darkness to await their judgment. We also read in 1 Peter 3:18-20 that Jesus’ resurrection proclaimed to “the spirits now in prison” that He was King of the earth. The angels were the first to attempt to usurp the throne by unlawful means. They took the daughters of Adam as wives in order to lay claim to authority over the earth. But God destroyed the earth by a flood and imprisoned them in chains of darkness. So it is obvious in studying this more carefully that Peter was not talking about Jesus preaching to men in Hades, but about a proclamation to the spirits or angels enchained in Tartarus. It has long been taught—based upon these verses—that Jesus went to Hades and preached a sermon to the dead. Hades, they say, is divided into two compartments: Hell for the unbelievers, and Paradise for the believers. Then after three days of preaching, Jesus rose from the dead, emptying Paradise of believers, and taking them to heaven with Him at His ascension. All of this is a nice legend, but unfortunately, it is based primarily upon Peter’s statements that we have already quoted. And here we run into a problem, because Peter was not referring to men in Hades but of the angels (or spirits) that sinned. But as we will see in chapter three, Jesus went to Hades, but did not preach any sermons there. Tartarus, then, is not the place where men are judged either before or after the Great White Throne Judgment. Peter’s Tartarus differs from Greek mythology, yet the Bible borrows the Greek terminology in order to describe a place that is different from Hades, the place where “spirits” and “angels” are imprisoned.

Rom 14:10-11 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" NIV Phil 2:10-11 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. NIV Apparently at the judgement seat talked about in the final part of the book of Revelation every knee will bow before the Lord Jesus. So eventually all men will have faith of some kind otherwise why would they bow down? Isaiah 45:22-25 22 "Turn to me and be saved,all you ends of the earth;for I am God, and there is no other. 23 By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked. Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. 24 They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.'"All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame. 25 But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exult. NIV

Definition 5 (forever) is contradicted by the verses that I just posted. If anyone has a definition of a word they should be able to back it up with actual verses.

From Def: In providing definitions for Greek words one must be disciplined to base their understanding solely on actual biblical usages of the word. From reading his many definitions I don't think Fairchild has done this. First I notice definitions 1 and 2 which are related, a lifetime, an age or generation. There is actually another Greek word that describes this better. It is the Greek word "genea". This is Strong's number 1074 and refers to an age in the context of the generation of men as part of a family. We get our word genealogy from this. Some of the other 7 listed are somewhat vague, for example 3 (destiny), while number 7 (a supernatural being) is perhaps in Fairchild's thinking because God is the God of the aeons. The original meaning of The word aion I understand was ‘vital force,’ ‘life;’ and then ‘age,’. His definition number 5 (forever) is contradicted by a number of usages. Some usages of "aion" that show "aion" to have an ending are directly below. The English word in quotation marks is "aion" in the Greek. Matt 13:39-40 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the "world"; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this "world". KJV Matt 13:49 49 So shall it be at the end of the "world": the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, KJV Matt 24:3 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the "world"? KJV Matt 28:20 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the "world". Amen. KJV 1 Cor 2:6 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this "world", nor of the princes of this "world", that come to nought KJV 1 Cor 10:11 11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the "world" are come. KJV Heb 9:26 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the "world" hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. KJV Below we see "aion" having a beginning. This also would indicate that "aion" is not synonymous with eternal or forever. Luke 1:70 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the "world" began: KJV John 9:32 32 Since "the world began" was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. KJV Acts 3:21 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the "world began". KJV Acts 15:18 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the "world". KJV Eph 3:9 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the "beginning of the world" hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: KJV Below we see "age" can be a time in the future and thus have a beginning. This also would indicate that it is not synonymous with eternal or forever. Matt 12:32 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this "world", neither in the world to come. KJV Luke 18:30 30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the "world" to come life everlasting. KJV 1 Cor 2:7 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the "world" unto our glory: KJV Eph 2:7 7 That in the "ages" (for once the King James version translates it correctly) to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.KJV Heb 6:5 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers "of the world" to come, KJV And below we have usages of "aion" which show that it has a present time that is distinct from both the future and the past. Gal 1:4-5 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil "world", according to the will of God and our Father: 5 To whom be glory for "ever" and "ever". Amen. KJV Eph 1:21 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this "world", but also in that which is to come: KJV 2 Tim 4:10 10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present "world", and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. KJV To summarize in developing and deriving definitions of Greek words from the bible one must do this based on actual biblical usages of the word in question. This is both foundational and essential. If one does not follow this procedure their understanding is not helpful and this is not good biblical scholarship. For example, one could take a Greek word that is used in mythological writings and use this as a basis for understanding a biblical word and concept. In so doing one may have gained knowledge, but the actual knowledge gained may be mythology which has been mistaken for the word of God.

Def, I will post again the contradictions according to biblical usage. My understanding is based on a study of the scriptures as I hope yours is. And one only has to read this thread to realize that I have a lot of scriptural material in support of my position. The bible says to try or test the spirits to see whether they are of God or not. How do we test them you ask? We must compare what we think we are getting by the spirit with the written word of God.

Def, the problem with your bible scholar is that he is breaking his own rules. One is suppose to base an understanding of Greek words found in the New Testament solely on the actual biblical usages with context. For the word "aion", some of his understanding he is getting from church tradition. And some of his church tradition contradicts a number of the actual biblical usages of this word. Would you like me to post again the actual verses that contradict part of his definition for the word "aion"?

That sounds good Roy. Glad to hear that. I am close with my sister and the rest of my family also.

Hi Roy: How are you doing? I hope well. Thanks for sharing your heart.

If I have why would I want to tell you?

Really Evan? And perhaps you missed this post by Def. And what do you call it when someone condemns a great many to eternal torment? Is that the love of God? Is that in harmony with John 3:16 and with other scriptures from both the Old and New Testament? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." And yes, I do believe that the doctrine of eternal torment has roots in pagan religions of the past. With that kind of belief system I am wondering how one can even look at someone eye ball to eye ball who has not confessed Christ to their religious standard without thinking they are devils incarnate or the scourge of God. If you know then please tell me where such a low opinion of others with differing views comes from?

Happy Birthday Watered Garden.

Def says, From what I understand historically, the Greeks reading from the Greek New Testament were more inclined to side with a limitation to punishment and the reconciliation of all by God through Jesus Christ at the end of the ages. A few of the Roman Latins on the other hand, under the influence of Augustine who did not know Greek and instead got his theology from later Latin versions of the bible, believed in eternal torment for the sinners. There seems to be three camps of belief on this. I used to believe in fire as a form of annihilation and that the unbelievers would be burned and then cease to exist in the lake of fire. This was the popular teaching in the Way denomination. Def is in the camp of believing that the unbelievers will be tormented eternally for their temporal lifetime of sin. He likely has gotten this theology from his church or place of worship. On more than a few posts he seems very concerned with keeping the status quo of religiosity and once even chided me for not going along with the more popular traditional church doctrines. For many churches, unfortunately, this may include the threat of eternal torment as a motivation of keeping in check the masses while keeping church attendance high. I have changed my previous beliefs on this subject and am now in the third camp of doctrinal views on this subject. I believe that God is not a failure and that through Jesus Christ he will restore and reconcile all men and women unto Himself through His Son Jesus Christ and not just a few people. I believe that God will use the Lake of Fire written about in chapter 20 of the book of Revelation as a form of purification for the ungodly and not as a means of annihilation or eternal torment. Since I am not a regular church goer my belief is based on an actual personal study of the scriptures and if you have followed this thread and read it in its entirety you would know that I have literally pages and pages and pages of scriptural material to back up my position. And I have pages and pages more which I have not yet posted. Thank you Def for motivating me to share this material which I think is very important for the Christian church to gain a knowledge of. And now in answer to your question, from the book "The Judgments of the Divine Law" by Stephen Jones. Chapter 6 What the Greek Church Fathers Believed The early Church fathers did not concern themselves with in-depth theology, but focused upon the person of Christ, the work that He accomplished, and how He fulfilled biblical prophecy in the law and prophets. The terms that they used of the judgment to come was essentially the same as the writers of the New Testament. Because they seldom felt the need to define their terms specifically, there is no way to prove what they believed, except by their use of the term aionios. Nonetheless, in the second century we begin to see some evidence as to how they generally understood this fiery judgment. Irenaeus of Lyons, Gaul (120-202 A.D.) Irenaeus was the Church leader from Lyons, a city in southern Gaul, which is now France. He died in 202 with thousands of fellow Christians during the persecution of Roman Emperor Severus. He wrote five books called Against Heresies. (See The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, edited by Roberts and Donaldson, 1994 reprint of the 1885 book.) He often writes of aionian judgment, and closes his monumental work with a commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:25 and 26, saying, “For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For in the times of the kingdom, the righteous man who is upon the earth shall then forget to die. But when He saith, All things shall be subdued unto Him, it is manifest that He is excepted who did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. “John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first ‘resurrection of the just,’ and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth; and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]. For the Lord also taught these things, when He promised that He would have the mixed cup new with His disciples in the kingdom. The apostle, too, has confessed that the creation shall be free from the bondage of corruption, [so as to pass] into the liberty of the sons of God. And in all these things, and by them all, the same God the Father is manifested, who fashioned man, and gave promise of the inheritance of the earth to the fathers, who brought it (the creature) forth [from bondage] at the resurrection of the just, and fulfills the promises for the kingdom of His Son. . . .” Here we see that Irenaeus understood that the creation itself would ultimately be set free from corruption and pass into the liberty of the sons of God. Again, in one of Irenaeus’ books that is now lost, we find another author quoting from it, giving us what is called a “fragment.” There are 55 fragments attributed to Irenaeus. Fragment number 39 reads, “Christ, who was called the Son of God before the ages, was manifested in the fullness of time, in order that He might cleanse us through His blood, who were under the power of sin, presenting us as pure sons to His Father, if we yield ourselves obediently to the chastisement of the Spirit. And in the end of time He shall come to do away with all evil, and to reconcile all things, in order that there may be an end of all impurities.” Here it is clear that Irenaeus believed in the reconciliation of all things at the end of time. So when Irenaeus speaks of aionios judgment of the wicked, we are inescapably drawn to the conclusion that he did not think the judgment would continue for all time. Clement of Alexandria (150-213 A.D.) Clement was born in Athens, Greece, and later moved to Alexandria, Egypt, where he became the head of the Church from 190-203. He fled for his life in 203 during the persecution of the Roman Emperor, Severus, and spent his remaining years teaching in Antioch and Palestine. In Stromata, VII, 26, Clement wrote, “God does not wreak vengeance, for vengeance is to return evil for evil, and God punishes only with an eye to the good.” Clement also comments on Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 4:9-11, which says, 9 It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance. 10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of the believers. 11 Prescribe and teach these things. In his comment, Clement shows that he understood Paul to mean that there was a “general” salvation of all men, as well as a “particular” salvation and reward for believers. Stromata VII, 2:5-12 says, “Wherefore also all men are His; some through knowledge, and others not yet so . . . For He is the Savior; not the Saviour of some, and of others not . . . Nor can He who is the Lord of All (and serves above all the will of the Good and Almighty Father) ever be hindered by another …And how is He Saviour and Lord, if not the Saviour and Lord of all? But He is the Saviour of those who have believed . . . and the Lord of those who have not believed, till, being enabled to confess Him, they obtain the peculiar and appropriate book which comes by Him. [Christ is] the First Administrator of the Universe, Who by the will of the Father directs the salvation of all . . . (the One only Almighty Good God—from the eon and for the eon saving by His Son) . . . for all things are arranged with a view to the salvation of the Universe by the Lord of the Universe, both generally and particularly . . . .” Clement then speaks of the nature of the fiery judgment at the Great White Throne where unbelievers will be judged: “But necessary corrections, through the goodness of the great Overseeing Judge, both by the attendant angels, and through various preliminary judgments, or through the Great and Final Judgment, compel egregious sinners to repent.” It was Clement’s opinion that the judgment would “compel egregious sinners to repent.” I do not mean to quibble, but in this I differ slightly with Clement. Any time a sinner is compelled to repent, the change is only superficial. The judgment of the law can only constrain the sinner’s behavior and limit his actions to what is lawfully acceptable. Only the love of God will change the heart and cause the sinner to truly repent. Clement wrote again about the nature of God’s fiery judgment in Stromata VII, 6, “We say that the fire purifies not the flesh but sinful souls, not an all-devouring vulgar fire, but the ‘wise fire’ as we call it, the fire that ‘pierceth the soul’ which passes through it.” Clement writes in Ecl. Proph., XXV, 4, that the fire is “wise,” “Fire is conceived of as a beneficent and strong power, destroying what is base, preserving what is good; therefore this fire is called ‘wise’ by the Prophets.” Clement writes in The Instructor, I, 8, that the purpose of fire is to restore sinners, “Punishment is, in its operation, like medicine; it dissolves the hard heart, purges away the filth of uncleanness, and reduces the swellings of pride and haughtiness; thus restoring its subject to a sound and healthful state.” Again, he writes in Stromata VII, 3:17, “. . . at any rate, even suffering is found to be useful alike in medicine and in education, and in punishment; and by means of it, characters are improved for the benefit of mankind.” Finally, in Clement’s commentary on 1 John, he writes, (On 1 John 1:5) “And in Him is no darkness at all,” that is, no passion, no keeping up of evil respecting anyone; He destroys no one, but gives salvation to all.” (On 1 John 2:2) “ ‘And not only for our sins,’ that is, for those of the faithful, is the Lord the Propitiator does he say, ‘but also for the whole world.’ He, indeed, saves all; but some He saves converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow voluntarily He saves with dignity of honour; so that ‘every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, or things on earth, and things under the earth’—that is, angels and men.” Clement clearly believed in the salvation of all men back to God. Some, he says, are reconciled voluntarily—and these are those who believe in Christ during the ages prior to the first resurrection. Others, he says, will be saved by means of “punishments.” I do not know what Greek word Clement was using, but I myself would use the word “judgment” rather than punishment in order to better manifest the purpose of the divine law (fire). Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) Origen was a student of Clement who became the head of the school in Alexandria after Clement was forced to flee. Origen is the most well-known of the early teachers of the restoration of all things. He wrote extensively and was the first to write a systematic theology of early Church belief. For this reason, the people today who oppose the teaching of restoration often call it “Origenism,” as if to imply that it was invented and believed almost exclusively by this one man and a few followers. But such a view merely portrays either prejudice or ignorance, since Origen did not differ substantially from the teachings of Clement, his mentor, or Pantaenus before him. In Volume 6 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, page 3, in the introduction to the writings of Gregory Thaumaturgus, the editors tell us, “Alexandria continues to be the head of Christian learning. . . We have already observed the continuity of the great Alexandrian school; how it arose, and how Pantaenus begat Clement, and Clement begat Origen. So Origen begat Gregory, and so the Lord has provided for the spiritual generation of the Church’s teachers, age after age, from the beginning. Truly, the Lord gave to Origen a holy seed, better than natural sons and daughters.” Origen is more well known than Clement or Pantaenus, because he produced the first real systematic theology in the early Church, called First Principles. And so he later became the “lightning rod” of his opponents’ wrath. Hence, the doctrine of the restoration of all things has been mislabeled “Origenism,” as if to imply that he invented the teaching. Nothing could be further from the truth, as every good Church historian knows. To include all that Origen writes about the nature and duration of God’s fiery judgment would take a large book in itself, and so we will include a sampling of what he wrote. In his book Against Celsus, IV, 13, he writes, “The Sacred Scripture does, indeed, call our God ‘a consuming fire’ [Heb. 12:29], and says that ‘rivers of fire go before His face’ [Dan. 7:10], and that ‘He shall come as a refiner’s fire and purify the people’ [Mal. 3:2-3]. As therefore, God is a consuming fire; what is it that is to be consumed by Him? We say it is wickedness, and whatever proceeds from it, such as is figuratively called ‘wood, hay, and stubble’ [1 Cor. 3:15]—which denote the evil works of man. Our God is a consuming fire in this sense; and He shall come as a refiner’s fire to purify rational nature from the alloy of wickedness and other impure matter which has adulterated the intellectual gold and silver; consuming whatever evil is admixed in all the soul.” Origen, like most Christians in the second century, seems to have lost the knowledge of biblical law. Hence, he seems to think that the “fire” is painful to the sinner. This may simply be because Origen held what is called “the doctrine of reserve,” believing that certain truths ought to be held in secret. It may be, then, that he taught in public that the fiery judgment upon sinners was physically painful, though temporary, but in private he may have thought otherwise. That is a matter of debate. In speaking of the duration of the fiery judgment, Origen writes in his Commentary in Epistle to the Romans, VIII, 11, “But how long this purification which is wrought out by penal fire shall endure, or for how many eons it shall torment sinners, He only knows to Whom all judgment is committed by the Father.” Again, Origen writes in First Principles, I, 6:3, “And so it happens that some in the first, others in the second, and others even in the last times, through their endurance of greater and more severe punishments of long duration, extending, if I may say so, over many eons, are by these very stern methods of correction renewed and restored . . . .” This is an example of how Origen taught that the “penal fire” would “torment sinners” for “many eons.” Certainly, he did not understand the concept of the Jubilee and how it mandated a limitation of all debt, or liability for sin. In this way, I differ from Origen’s teaching, for I view the divine law as judgment, not punishment or torment. Nonetheless, we are in agreement that the goal of this fiery judgment is not to destroy sinners, but to restore them to God. Novatian of Rome (circa 250 A.D.) This great Presbyter of the Church in Rome also held the doctrine of the purifying nature of divine judgment. In De Regula Fidei, IV, he wrote that the. . . “. . . wrath and indignation of the Lord, so-called, are not such passions as bear those names in man; but that they are operations of the Divine Mind directly solely to our purification.” Didymus the Blind (308-395 A.D.) Didymus also held to the concept of divine punishment, rather than what I would call judgment. He says in De. Span. San. II, “For although the Judge at times inflicts tortures and anguish on those who merit them, yet he who more deeply scans the reason of things, perceiving the purpose of His goodness, who desires to amend the sinner, confesses Him to be good. He who is our Lord and Saviour inflicts on us everything that may lead us to Salvation; inflicting on us according to His mercy, yet doing this in His judgment.” In his Commentary on 1 Peter, III, he writes, “As mankind by being reclaimed from their sins are to be subjected to Christ in the dispensation appointed for the Salvation of all, so the angels will be reduced to obedience by the correction of their vices.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Bishop of Constantinople (325-390 A.D.) Gregory was educated in Alexandria and in Athens. Along with his friend, Basil, they compiled a collection of Origen’s writings called Philokalia, or Love of the Beautiful. He ultimately became the bishop of Constantinople and was known as one of the four Eastern Doctors of the Church. Robert Payne writes on page 179 of his book, The Fathers of the Eastern Church, “Of all the Fathers of the Church, he was the only one to be granted after his death the title “Theologian,” which until this time was reserved for an apostle—John of Patmos.” Gregory wrote this (Orat. XXXIX, 19) about the lake of fire: “These (apostates), if they will, may go our way, which indeed is Christ’s; but if not, let them go their own way. In another place perhaps they shall be baptized with fire, that last baptism, which is not only very painful, but enduring also; which eats up, as it were hay, all defiled matter, and consumes all vanity and vice.” Gregory, Bishop of Nyassa (335-395 A.D.) This Gregory was the younger brother of Basil, the friend of Gregory of Nazianzen. He was the bishop of Nyassa, a town in Cappadocia. Robert Payne says of him in his book, The Fathers of the Eastern Church, page 168, 169, “Of the three Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nyassa is the one closest to us, the least proud, the most subtle, the one most committed to the magnificence of men. That strange, simple, happy, unhappy, intelligent, and God-tormented man was possessed by angels. . . In Eastern Christianity his Great Catechism follows immediately after Origen’s First Principles. These were the two seminal works, close-woven, astonishingly lucid, final . . . Athanasius was the hammer, Basil the stern commander, Gregory of Nazianzus the tormented singer, and it was left to Gregory of Nyassa to be the man enchanted with Christ . . . Four hundred years after his death, at the Seventh General Council held in A.D. 787, the assembled princes of the Church granted him a title which exceeded in their eyes all the other titles granted to men: he was called ‘Father of Fathers’.” In Gregory’s Orat. in 1 Cor. 15:28, 32-44, where the Apostle Paul writes of all things being restored to God at the end of time, he writes, “33. So I begin by asking what is the truth that the divine apostle intends to convey in this passage? It is this. In due course evil will pass over into non-existence; it will disappear utterly from the realm of existence. Divine and uncompounded goodness will encompass within itself every rational nature; no single being created by God will fail to achieve the kingdom of God. The evil that is now present in everything will be consumed like a base metal melted by the purifying flame. Then everything which derives from God will be as it was in the beginning before it had ever received an admixture of evil. . . 40. And this is the ultimate goal of our hope, that nothing should be left in opposition to the good, but that the divine life should permeate everything and abolish death from every being, the sin, from which as we have already said, death secured its hold over men, having already been destroyed. . . [Here he quotes from 1 Cor. 15:22-28 ending with “God will be all in all.”] 44. That last phrase, which speaks of God coming to be in all by becoming all to each, clearly portrays the non-existence of evil. Obviously, God will be ‘in all’ only when no trace of evil is to be found in anything. For God cannot be in what is evil. So either He will not be ‘in all’ and some evil will be left in things, or, if we are to believe that He is ‘in all,’ then that belief declares that there will be no evil. For God cannot be in what is evil.” In Gregory’s Comm. on Psalm 54:17, he writes about divine judgment and its purpose to restore mankind, saying, “The Lord will, in His just judgment, destroy the wickedness of sinners; not their nature . . . Wickedness being thus destroyed, and its imprint being left in none, we shall all be fashioned after Christ, and in all that one character shall shine, which was originally imprinted on our nature.” In Gregory’s De Anima et Resurrectione, he comments on the second death, saying, “They who live in the flesh ought, by virtuous conversation, to free themselves from fleshly lusts, lest after death, they should again need another death, to cleanse away the remains of fleshly vice that cling to them.” We know, of course, from Revelation 20:14 that the second death is the lake of fire. It is obvious from this that Gregory believed that the second death—the lake of fire—was God’s manner of cleansing the sinners, not of destroying them. After all, Revelation 20 makes it clear that the lake of fire is for unbelievers, not believers, and so Gregory was speaking about the cleansing of unbelievers. Victorinus (circa 360 A.D.) In his book Adv. Arium I, 3, he writes that Christ will . . . “. . . regenerate all things, as He created all things. By the life that is in Him all things will be cleansed and return into eonian life. Christ is to subject all things to Himself . . . when this shall have been accomplished, God will be in all things, because all things will be full of God.” Jerome, Bishop of Bethlehem (340-419 A.D.) It was in Jerome’s day (400 A.D.) that the belief in the salvation of all men came to be questioned officially. It arose in Alexandria as the by-product of a petty dispute over money. There arose in Alexandria an unscrupulous bishop named Theophilus who became offended when a rich widow gave money to one of his deacons (Isidorus) in order to use the money to buy clothing for poor women. (She knew that if she gave the money to Theophilus, he would use it on his building projects.) Theophilus flew into a rage and banished Isidorus. In my book, Creation’s Jubilee, I wrote a summary of the story on page 115, saying, “It happened that Isidorus was a great admirer of Origen. So to get even with Isidorus, Theophilus called together a synod of a few loyal bishops, condemned Origen as a heretic, and forbade anyone henceforth to read his works. When a group of 300 Nitrian monks refused to acquiesce in denouncing Origen, he then sent armed men to attack and kill them. Eighty of these monks, however, escaped, making their way to Constantinople, appealing to the bishop there, John Chrysostom, who, they knew, was a man of great integrity. John was horrified, and after hearing the case, he sided with the monks. However, Theophilus succeeded by outrageous accusations to depose John and send him into exile. He ultimately drove John to his death. These accusations were gleefully translated into Latin by Jerome, who, according to historian, Hans von Campenhausen, ‘lost all feeling of decency and veracity’ (The Father of the Latin Church, p. 178).” Up until that time Jerome had written much about the restoration of all mankind. But during this controversy, he wrote to the bishop of Rome, asking him what position he should take. The bishop sided with Theophilus, so Jerome suddenly stopped teaching the salvation of all men. In one of his earlier writings, though, Jerome wrote (In Eph. 4:16), “In the end of all things the whole body which has been dissipated will be restored . . . What I mean is, the fallen Angel will begin to be that which he was created, and man, who was expelled from Paradise, will once more be restored to the tilling of Paradise. These things will then take place universally.” John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.) John was one of the most famous of the bishops of Constantinople in the late fourth century. He is the bishop to whom the surviving Nitrian monks appealed when attacked by the soldiers of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria. His writings are not so clear as to make it certain of his belief concerning the salvation of all, but he does give some hints as to his belief in the purpose of judgment. In his Hom. IX in Epis. Ad Rom. 5:11, he writes, “. . . if punishment were an evil to the sinner, God would not have added evils to the evil . . . all punishment is owing to His loving us, by pains to recover us and lead us to Him, and to deliver us from sin which is worse than hell.” This same teaching can be found in his Hom. V, 2 de Statuis; and in Hom. III, 2 in Epis. Ad Philem. 1:25. The problem is that there are many places in his writings where he seems to teach endless punishment. We believe that this is because he held the doctrine of reserve, where some thought it better to threaten with greater punishments than they themselves actually believed God would inflict—in order to discourage people from turning away from God. Titus, Bishop of Bostra (circa 364 A.D.) This bishop wrote a book against the Manichean religion that had been started in the third century by a man named Mani. Manicheanism taught Persian Dualism, where time would end with the separation of light from darkness. That is, good and evil would continue to co-exist side by side. The Christian Church adopted parts of this view in teaching that the ultimate goal of history would be heaven and hell forever co-existing. Titus’ book, Against Manichaeans, Book I refutes this idea, saying, “. . . the punishments of God are Holy, as they are remedial and salutary in their effect upon transgressors; for they are inflicted, not to preserve them in their wickedness, but to make them cease from their sins. The abyss . . . is indeed the place of punishment, but it is not endless. The anguish of their sufferings compels them to break off from their sins.” Perhaps this gives us some idea why Augustine, the ex-Manichean, could not shake the idea that evil would exist forever in the sinners sent to the lake of fire. Ambrose of Milan (340-397 A.D.) Ambrose was the one through whom Augustine was converted from Manicheanism to Christianity. Ambrose wrote in his In Psalm 1, ch. 54, “Our Saviour has appointed two kinds of resurrection, in accordance with which John says, in the Apocalypse, ‘Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection;’ for such come to grace without the judgment. As for those who do not come to the first, but are reserved until the second (resurrection), these shall be burning until they fulfill their appointed times, between the first and second resurrection; or, if they should not have fulfilled in them then, they shall remain still longer in punishment.” I find it interesting that Ambrose believed that there would be a “burning” of the sinners during the Millennium between the first and second resurrection, though John says nothing of any such thing. Ambrose himself does not tell us the nature of that fire, but he does tell us something of the duration of the judgment. He thought that some sinners would be released from the fire at the end of the thousand years, and only those who deserved a longer punishment would remain in the fire beyond the Millennium. By no means is this a complete index of those who believed in the salvation of all men. Nor should we think that they were all agreed in every detail on how this was to be accomplished. Even so, they did all have one thing in common—they all believed that judgment would come upon the sinners, and that it was by means of this divine “fire” that all men would ultimately be saved. None of them believed that sinners would be saved apart from God’s fiery judgment. We should also be remiss if we did not inform our readers that there were a minority of Church Fathers, particularly in the Latin-speaking Church of the Western part of the Roman Empire, who believed in eternal torment. Augustine was one. Another was Lactantius. Thus, the idea of universal reconciliation of all was not universally understood in the early Church. But even Augustine himself admitted that his own view was held by a minority of Christians. In his Enchiridion, ad Lauren. Ch. 29, Augustine wrote that there were . . . “. . . very many, who, though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments.” In view of Augustine’s admission, the Church today should not think it strange if some believe that God will save all mankind. They should not excommunicate or expel such Christian believers, but instead should search out the truth for themselves. And if even the search should end in disagreement, it should not become a “point of fellowship,” for if the early Church had done this, the majority of believers would have been expelled from the Church. Christianity is based upon belief in Jesus as the Messiah, His death on the Cross in our place, His resurrection from the dead, and His ascension to the Throne in heaven, where He has been proclaimed King of all the earth. These are the essentials which define a Christian. We are justified by faith alone—not faith AND belief in any particular view of the judgments of God. We do not mean to minimize the importance of knowing the ultimate plan of God for the earth, but neither should we make these beliefs a requisite for justification. If, then, we keep this in perspective, we will be able to discuss the things of God freely and openly in the spirit of love that Christ intended.

Pawtucket: I have one request for the new forum site. That it accept HTML commands. I like to play around with them some times when posting. Thank you.

Jerry, I read your post and see your point. For God to allow such death to relatively innocent people, and we saw another example of this in the recent tidal wave in Asia, God would have to make it up to these people some how. Since they are now dead the only way God could make it up to them is at the final resurrection where he judges mankind. Otherwise for God to allow such a thing to happen He would be neither loving, nor righteous, nor just. Fortunately, I believe God will make it up to these people who have by circumstance received such a relatively unfair fate. Ultimately, God is responsible for the fate of man. He created man in his own image. He created the earth and the natural and spiritual world which through cause and effect can bring destruction or great blessings to man. If God is truly sovereign He would have to have a way to restore man to his originaly nature created in his own image. Otherwise God is a failure. Fortunately, I think God will ultimately restore man. God might take his sweet time about this, but I do believe in the sovereignty of God who created all things.

Hi Jim: Hope you are doing well in Arizona and are in good health. I will let our mutual friend Peter Churchill know that you have posted here. I will see him again this Friday night for our weekly bible study. All the best to you brother. Regards, Mark

Danny, if you're going to auction it off you might want to use E-Bay.

Good point Evan. However, I want to add that Wierwille read Bullinger and others have also likely read Bullinger as well. Some of the other authors that Wierwille read in forming his theology may also have been reputable and were likely read by other bible teachers. For example, Wierwille or at least his research staff may have gotten some material from Ernest L. Martin, an excellent biblical historian. As far as Wierwille originating biblical knowledge? I think we know that he mostly copied the work of others.

Hey Def, you're not giving Oak the finger are yea?

O.K. Next time I am in Chicago we will meet up at either B.L.U.E.S. or Kingston Mines. Kingston Mines is a larger club and if there is enough of us it will give us more elbow room. However, the people at B.L.U.E.S. were very personable. I talked to the guitarist and bass player. They were both rather good hearted black dudes along with being talented musicians who really enjoyed playing. At Kingston Mines it was 3 black dudes playing guitar and bass, with one of them also singing, and a white chick drummer. The 3 guys rocked and the chick was right on time.

Sorry Steve and Cindy. Next time I am in Chicago I will e-mail you. Promise. In my defense or rather excuse, I was only there for 3 days and one entire day I had to work. The rest was spent hanging with and seeing the sights with my cousin from California, who now lives in Chicago and mingling with single women. You can blame it all on hormones. That club called B.L.U.E.S. is on 2519 North Halsted Street, Chicago. Right across the street is a club called Kingston Mines.

Hellfire, whereby one is tormented eternally for temporal sins has pagan roots and is not biblical. In fact, in the Old Testament God was disgusted when his people followed the pagan religion of their neighbors and sacrficed their children by fire. What you are advocating has roots in paganism and not the Old Testament law. In the time of Lot when Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed those people's death was likely the equivalent of an atomic bomb being dropped on their heads. There death was likely very fast. They received the death penalty to await God's judgement as did those who died in the Flood. They were not tormented for days and days like you are advocating.

Hey Girls I am in California, but I was in Chicago last week. If you like Blues music there are a couple of great clubs on N. Halstead? in Chicago. The names are Kingston Mines and B.L.U.E.S. These two blues clubs are right across the street from each other. If you like the Blues and you walk into those places your feet will get all tingly and happy and you might even start dancing on the table tops. Gotta run now. Have fun.