One on One: Eternal Damnation VS Universal Salvation (Logos_X VS Apologist)

[Apologist]

"I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my words...in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do. I ask the blessed Mary ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God." (A penitential rite from the Novus Ordo)

My dear brothers and sisters, today we consider a most dreadful topic: Hell. Certain people claim that Hell is but a temporary place; they claim that in the end, all people shall be saved; they seem to think that even Satan himself shall be saved; they seem to think that nothing we do really matters, for Christ saves all….

This is Hogwash! Such thinking is heretical at best and absolutely perilous for the soul at worst!

I shall show that a sinner who dies in his sin shall burn forever in the fiery pits of hell for all eternity, and be flayed alive and roasted by the Devil and his angels for ever and ever, and there they shall burn in agony day and night without cessation nor relief.

I shall show this in the following ways:

A) Direct and Indirect Scriptural Verse (With the assumption that the New American Catholic Bible is a good translation)
B) By Reductio Ad Absurdam
C) As according to infallible decree and tradition
D) As according to modern revelation
E) By sheer logic keeping in mind the nature of sin

A) By Direct and Indirect Scriptural Verse

Revelations 20:10

“The Devil who had led them astray was thrown into the pool of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever”

And then it continues on in 20:15

“Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire.”

Matthew 25:41

“Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'”

This continues in 25:46

“And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Matthew 22:12

“He said to him, 'My friend how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?' But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, 'Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.' Many are invited, but few are chosen."

Matthew 21:43

“Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.”

To this I comment: If there is only Heaven and Hell (in the end) and the Kingdom of God is taken away from those who don’t produce fruit, that obviously leaves them…where? Survey says…HELL!

Matthew 24:24

“False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect”

Note the distinction between Elect and non elect.

Mark 3:29

“But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin."

Note how he specifically said “Will never have forgiveness,” and “Everlasting sin.”

John 3:18

“Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

If hell were not everlasting, then could it truly be considered condemnation?

Matthew 10:28

“And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.”

If Hell is only temporary, then why should there be need for fear?

There are other verses, but I believe that those should suffice.

B) By Reductio ad Absurdam

First, Let us presume that indeed the word translating to “everlasting” does not indeed mean everlasting. Indeed, the term “Seculum Seculorum” (sp?) means, word for word, “From age to age,” but is considered to mean to same as “forever and ever” or “everlasting.” Let us, however, presume that it does mean a definite time. Then the same thing applies when Christ says “everlasting life.”…did Christ really mean “You will have life from age to age (as meaning a definite time period) if you believe in me”? That is absurd and, therefore, cannot be held as true. Christ's salvation is not for a finite period of time.

Second, let us presume that even a single soul does not desire salvation. Universal Salvation mandates that every soul be saved. If Universal Salvation is held as true, that must mean that man does not have free will. That is absurd (for obvious reasons) and, therefore, cannot be held as true.

C) By Infallible Decree and Tradition

Papa and the Magisterium said, therefore it is so. Nuff said.

D) As According to Modern Revelation

“Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror. “

The first part of the First Secret revealed by the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children at Fatima.

From the diary of St. Faustina on this link:

http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/mercy/coming.htm

“You will prepare the world for My final coming. (Diary 429)
Speak to the world about My mercy ... It is a sign for the end times. After it will come the Day of Justice. While there is still time, let them have recourse to the fountain of My mercy. (Diary 848)
Tell souls about this great mercy of Mine, because the awful day, the day of My justice, is near. (Diary 965).
I am prolonging the time of mercy for the sake of sinners. But woe to them if they do not recognize this time of My visitation. (Diary 1160)”

F) As according to Sheer Logic as touching the nature of Sin and the nature of Eternity

First, let us define sin. “St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: ‘All sin is an aversion from God A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God.’”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
That being said, sin is properly divided into mortal and venial sin. (Or, for those of you who prefer Pauline terminology… ‘sin that is deadly’ and ‘sin that is not deadly’) Mortal sin is a sin which completely cuts off the sinner from God. Catholic teaching states that those who die in a state of unrepentant mortal sin shall burn forever in the fiery of hell. The logic is simple: When a person dies, he passes from time into eternity. (Evidence is found in one of the Pauline letters…”This mortal must put in immortal…etc.) Eternity is by necessity static.

“ I answer that, As we attain to the knowledge of simple things by way of compound things, so must we reach to the knowledge of eternity by means of time, which is nothing but the numbering of movement by "before" and "after." For since succession occurs in every movement, and one part comes after another, the fact that we reckon before and after in movement, makes us apprehend time, which is nothing else but the measure of before and after in movement. Now in a thing bereft of movement, which is always the same, there is no before or after. As therefore the idea of time consists in the numbering of before and after in movement; so likewise in the apprehension of the uniformity of what is outside of movement, consists the idea of eternity.

Further, those things are said to be measured by time which have a beginning and an end in time, because in everything which is moved there is a beginning, and there is an end. But as whatever is wholly immutable can have no succession, so it has no beginning, and no end.

Thus eternity is known from two sources: first, because what is eternal is interminable---that is, has no beginning nor end (that is, no term either way); secondly, because eternity has no succession, being simultaneously whole.”

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP010.html#FPQ10A1THEP1

That being said, if a person passes from death to eternity in a state of aversion from God, then, by necessity of the Staticity of Eternity, he must remain as such.

In short, Universalism is bull.

 

[logos_x]

Opening Statement

Opening Statement

Apologist,

Thank you.

Before the debate begins I want to show what it is I'm putting forward as true.

Universalism is a different paradigm, a whole different mindset and plausability structure, as an interpretive grid when reading scripture.

Universalists take it seriously when the Bible says:

1Tim 4:9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
1Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.​

Since it is the stated purpose of God that in the end God is to be all in all, then we must interpret scripture in such a way that does not contradict that outcome. The Word does not contradict itself, and God is not double minded.




Those who believe in universalism of the Biblical variety, generally do not want to build a denomination around the teaching. It belongs to everyone. There are those who believe in the salvation of all mankind in every denomination of Christianity. They do not verbalize it because of the persecution they might receive. But surveys of Christians in main-line denominations prove many of them do NOT believe in Hell even though the teaching of Hell is part of their denomination’s teachings.


What Does the Bible really teach the End to Be?

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us;
Rom 8:19 for the earnest looking out of the creation doth expect the revelation of the sons of God;
Rom 8:20 for to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope,
Rom 8:21 that also the creation itself shall be set free from the servitude of the corruption to the liberty of the glory of the children of God;
Rom 8:22 for we have known that all the creation doth groan together, and doth travail in pain together till now.​

The doctrine I am putting forward is a universalism that comes right out of the mouths of the Hebrew prophets; it is a universalism that came out of the mouth of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth; it is a universalism that the apostles of Christ established as a foundational teaching in the first century AD; and it is the universalism taught by the early church fathers for the first few centuries of the Common Era.

True, by about the time of Augustine, this glorious teaching sank into the sands, which I believe pushed the Western world into the Dark Ages. During that time, those who embraced the Universal Restitution of all things(Acts 3:21) were killed for their beliefs and many of their writings were burned. That is why we find much literature supporting universal salvation in the early church fathers’ writings but not much from about the fifth century to the time of the Reformation.

But since the Reformation, there have been thousands of books, booklets, tracts, etc written by Christians who support the teaching of Universal Restoration through Scriptures. This teaching will NOT sink into the sands of time again. This teaching will grow and expand even as the knowledge of the Lord begins to cover the whole earth. The glory of Universal Salvation is part of the knowledge that will set creation free from its bondage to corruption.



Below are a few of the scriptures that Christians throughout Church History have used to support their belief that Universalism is taught in the Bible-- that is, in its Hebrew and Greek form --- and comments to help you see the Universalist plausability structure:

Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."
The question is this: Will Jesus Christ really do what He said He came here to do? He didn't say He came to save some of the lost. He came to save the lost. And that is everybody! Apart from Christ, we are all lost, but He came to seek for us until He finds us (Luke 15:4).

Luke 3:6: "All flesh shall see the salvation of God."
This verse is probably taken from Isaiah 40:5, which says, "And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken." Surely these verses point in the direction of universal salvation. Matthew 5:8: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

Luke 6:27-36: “But I [Jesus] say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungratefujl and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

If you are a Christian, you have probably read this passage many times to discover what kind of lifestyle Jesus expects from you. Have you ever thought of reading it as a description of God? Look at it in that light. Jesus says in the end that if you do these things, you will be like your Father, "for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil" and "your Father is merciful." Remember also that He is unchanging. If God's attitude toward sinners now is love and mercy, it will always be. Could the loving God described above really be happy knowing that even one of His children created in His image is suffering unspeakable anguish in hell forever?

Matthew 12:29: "How can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house." Luke 11:21-22: "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil."
In these verses, the strong man is Satan, the stronger man is Christ, and the plunder or spoil is mankind. Jesus defeated Satan on the cross and He will eventually carry all of the spoils of that victory to be with Him. If anyone is eternally lost, Jesus' victory was only partial. In the NLT, Luke 11:22 is translated, "Until someone who is stronger attacks and overpowers him, strips him of his weapons, and carries off his belongings." Jesus won the right on the cross to strip Satan of all his belongings, and He will!

Luke 15:4: "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it?"
If the average shepherd would keep on looking for one lost sheep and not give up until he finds it, surely our Lord will be no less persistent in seeking out every last one of His sheep, not just until they die, but until He finds them and brings them back safely to His fold. Praise His name forever! By asking, "What man of you...," Jesus gives clear sanction to the right to argue from those feelings shared even by the outcast and sinful, to the divine feelings I will do later on in this thread. It is obvious that that is exactly what Jesus is doing here in this passage. It is as if He said, "If a shepherd won't give up until he finds one lost sheep, how much more will God refuse to give up on His children!"

John 1:6-7: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him."
That ALL might believe! That is God's stated reason for sending John, and that is His reason for all of His dealings with mankind. Dare we say that God will fail to accomplish His goal in sending John and all of the other prophets, and His only begotten Son?

John 1:29: "The next day he [John] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, `Behold, the Lamb of God, who is going to try to take away the sin of the world!"'
Is that what it says? No! Jesus is "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" The sin of the whole world, not just a part of it.

John 3:17: "God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

Again, why would God, who is all knowing, send Jesus to save the world if He knew beforehand that most of the world would not be saved? That doesn't make sense. God sent Jesus to save the world because He knew His Son would accomplish exactly what He sent Him to do.

John 3:35, 6:37-39: "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day."
The false belief that salvation must take place before physical death necessitates explaining away even the clearest scriptures. If you believe that punishment after death is temporary and remedial, as I hope to show when we get to our study of the Greek words translated "eternal" and "everlasting," the above verses are crystal clear. The Father has promised the Son that everyone will eventually come to Him. He has given them to Him. Their destiny as redeemed children of God is sure!

John 6:33: "For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
Notice He doesn't offer life to the world-He gives it! I am not saying faith and repentance are unnecessary. I am saying that verses like Philippians 2:10 about every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God look forward to a time when everyone who has ever been born has come to faith and repentance.

John 12:32: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."
Jesus didn't say that He would draw a select group called "The Elect"! He doesn't say He will try to draw all people to Himself. He says He will do it! He says in the words of a poet:

So shall I lift up in My pierced hands beyond the reach of grief and guilt, the whole creation. -Elizabeth Barrett Browning

Matthew 11:27: "All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and ANYONE to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
This verse says as clearly as it possibly can that the only thing necessary for anyone to know God is for Jesus to choose to reveal Him to them. Why would Jesus choose not to reveal the Father to anyone for whom He died?

In what has become known as the High Priestly Prayer, just before His betrayal and arrest, Jesus says in John 17:1-3: "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over ALL flesh, to give eternal life to ALL whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
Who has the Father given to Jesus? All flesh. Or as John 3:35 says, "all things," or as John 12:32 says, "all people," the salvation of every person has been predestined from before the foundation of the world. The Father has given ALL mankind to Jesus, and He will draw them ALL to Himself in His time.

John 19:30: "When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, `It is finished."'
J.C. Ryle writes, "Our Lord meant that His great work of redemption was finished. He had as Daniel foretold, `finished transgression, made an end of sin, made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness' (Daniel 9:24). After thirty-three years, since the day when He was born in Bethlehem, He had done all, paid all, performed all, suffered all that was needful to save sinners and satisfy the justice of God. He had fought the battle and won it, and in two days He would give proof of it by rising again."

If the salvation of all men was not secured on the cross but only made available, it would have been far from finished. The battle would have just begun. The hard part would have been getting people to receive the salvation made available to them. People do need to receive it, but Jesus died knowing that they all eventually will because the Father had given them all to Him. It is finished! 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

So much for limited atonement! Jesus made atonement for the sins of the whole world. Would He who knows all things, who knows the beginning from the end, die for anyone unless He knew His death would have the desired effect of reconciling all people to God?

1 John 3:5: "You know that he [Jesus] appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin."
Did Jesus really come just to take sin to hell and leave it there like a toxic waste dump, or did He come to annihilate it? Our next verse answers that question.

1 John 3:8: "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."
What is sin? The works of the devil. Jesus came not to keep sin in hell forever but to destroy it. That is why 2 Peter 3:13 says, "But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." Some day the entire universe will be completely devoid of sin, and God will be all in all! There won't be a place called hell that is full of sin forever, because according to Revelation 20:14, "Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire," presumably for destruction.

1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the few who receive him in life, and to throw the rest into everlasting torment." [
Is that what it says? No, it says, "The Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." Will He succeed, or will He fail?

Revelation 1:18: "I [Jesus] have the keys of Death and Hades."
How can death eternally separate anyone from Christ when He has the keys of Death and Hades and He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance?

Revelation 5:13: "And I [John] heard EVERY creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and ALL that is in them, saying, `To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!"'
How can people be left in hell weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth if they are ALL gathered before the throne of God and the Lamb, worshipping them and ascribing to them blessing and honor and glory?

Ephesians 1:9-10: God's "purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time," is to "unite ALL things in him [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."
What other meaning could these verses possibly have than the clear meaning that is right there? In the fullness of time, ALL things ("all people," according to the context) will be united in Christ and God will be all in all! That is why Paul talks in verse 12 about "we who were the first to hope in Christ." We who are believers now are the firstfruits. The rest will follow in due time.

Acts 3:21 (NLT): Jesus "must remain in heaven until the time for the final restoration of ALL things, as God promised long ago through the prophets."
Again, what else could this refer to but the complete restoration of every child of God created in His image to a right relationship with Him?

Acts 24:14-15: "I [Paul] worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, having a hope in God ... that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust."
This is the same man who said in Romans 9:3: "I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers." Would he hope for the resurrection of the unjust knowing that they were being raised only to be thrown body and soul into a place of torment forever?​

We have been looking mostly at the Gospels and Acts. Now I will breifly touch on the letters of Paul. We will find in them the stream of promise still widening, the universal nature of redemption indicated with a precision of language and a variety of illustrations that seem impossible to reconcile with endless evil. I don't mean that every passage quoted is in itself conclusive. I do mean that all are relevant, as links in the great chain of promise, which taken together make a very strong case for universal restoration, which brings up an important question:
If we are to believe in endless evil and endless suffering, how can we account for such passages that, taken in their natural meaning, obviously point to the wider hope?

That the Bible holds out the hope of universal restoration and reconciliation cannot be denied (Acts 3:21; Colossians 1:20). If this will never take place, why is it in the Bible? Why does the Bible raise expectations that will never be fulfilled?

Paul's writings deserve special notice. His writings are the closest thing to a systematic theology in the Bible ranging over the whole field of the divine purpose and human destiny. I want to draw your attention to two points:

1. Not only does Paul assert the sovereignty of God, but it also lies at the center of his teaching. He sees everywhere a purpose slowly but surely fulfilling itself, a purpose that can be resisted but not defeated.
2. He gives striking prominence to the resurrection as a spiritual and redemptive force. It is the climax of Christ's work for man.​

There is so much in Paul's epistles that it is literally amazing so few people come to knowledge of the universalism he teaches...But I will only look at three passages here:

In Romans 4:13, he says that God promised "Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world." God chose Abraham not for Abraham's sake only, but also that he might inherit the world. This is a spiritual inheritance, not physical. In verse 17, Paul cites Genesis 17:5: "As it is written, `I have made you the father of many nations."'

Romans 5:18: "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for ALL men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for ALL men." This passage couldn't be more explicit. Everyone who was condemned by Adam's sin will be justified by Christ's death. If the word "ALL" means "all mankind" in the first part of the verse, it means "all mankind" in the second part. I highly recommend studying the entire passage (Romans 5:12-21) without a commentary. Commentators will just try to explain away the clear teaching of this passage, which is that grace is always stronger than sin.

Romans 5:15: "If many [everyone] died through one man's [Adam's] trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift [salvation] by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many [everyone]."
This verse is another example of those who believe in eternal hell changing the meaning of a word in the same sentence. In the first part of the verse, they say the word "many" refers to all men because Adam's trespass brought death on all mankind, but when Paul uses the same word in the second half of the same sentence, they say it refers only to those who are born again before they die, because they refuse to believe that God's grace will reach every man. Paul clearly says in this verse that the grace of God and the free gift of salvation abounds for everyone!

Apologist thinks he can argue a case against Universalism. People like him have been doing so for over 1500 years, sometimes resorting to murder to stop it's "heretical" claims. Well...I'm here to tell you that it's truth cannot be stopped by the hand of man.

Like a golden thread woven through the Bible, so runs the doctrine of the restoration of all things. While not immediately apparent, once visible, it stands out as a central doctrine of both Old and New Testaments.

 

[logos_x]

Response to Apologist's Opening Post

Response to Apologist's Opening Post

Certain people claim that Hell is but a temporary place; they claim that in the end, all people shall be saved; they seem to think that even Satan himself shall be saved; they seem to think that nothing we do really matters, for Christ saves all….

Your argument is flawed in the extreme. Within it's logic, you have said it is not possible to save all, that Christ saves all, from sin...because of sin.
It also puts forward the absurd idea that if Christ saves all men...then nothing we do really matters. That is just stupid. If men are saved, then what would they do that wouldn't matter?


A) By Direct and Indirect Scriptural Verse

Revelations 20:10

“The Devil who had led them astray was thrown into the pool of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever”

And then it continues on in 20:15

“Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire.”

Rev 20:10 and the Devil, who had been leading them astray, was thrown into the Lake of fire and sulphur where the Wild Beast and the false Prophet were, and day and night they will suffer torture until the Age of the Ages.

Rev 20:15 and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire.

If this is eternal...why does it talk about ages?

And you left out verse 14 which defines the second DEATH as "death and Hades" thown into the "lake of fire (grk: Pur) and brimstone (grk: Theion)" Clearly it is talking about death and hades being overcome and put away.

Brimstone is a very interesting reference. It is the Greek word θεῖον theion: 1) brimstone
1a) divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off disease

I think John chose the word carefully to convey precicely that meaning.

Matthew 25:41

“Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'”

This continues in 25:46

“And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Mat 25:41 "Then will He say to those at His left, "'Begone from me, with the curse resting upon you, into the Fire of the Ages, which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels.
Mat 25:42 For when I was hungry, you gave me nothing to eat; when thirsty, you gave me nothing to drink;
Mat 25:43 when homeless, you gave me no welcome; ill-clad, you clothed me not; sick or in prison, you visited me not.'

Mat 25:46 "And these shall go away into the Punishment of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life of the Ages."

Again, if it is refering to some kind of timeless state why talk about ages?

Also, notice the word translated as punishment:

κόλασις kolasis: 1) correction, punishment, penalty.

The question becomes..is this merely vindictive (and insatiable!) torment for all eternity without possibility of change? Or is it corrective in accordance with God's heart and stated intention?

Matthew 22:12

“He said to him, 'My friend how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?' But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, 'Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.' Many are invited, but few are chosen."

Matthew 21:43

“Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.”

I take these two together because these verses clearly are not talking about Hell at all.
This is talking about the innauguration of the New Covenant and the Judgement coming upon Jerusalem.

To this I comment: If there is only Heaven and Hell (in the end) and the Kingdom of God is taken away from those who don’t produce fruit, that obviously leaves them…where? Survey says…HELL!

Away from the Jews, exclusively. It is about the transition of the Old Covenant to the New.

Matthew 24:24

“False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect”

Note the distinction between Elect and non elect.

The "elect" become witnesses. To whom?
The "elect" carry the Word of God. To whom?

The distinction between "elect" and "non-elect" is not what the tradition has said.

Mark 3:29

“But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin."

Note how he specifically said “Will never have forgiveness,” and “Everlasting sin.”

Mar 3:23 And, having called them near, in similes he said to them, `How is the Adversary able to cast out the Adversary?
Mar 3:24 and if a kingdom against itself be divided, that kingdom cannot be made to stand;
Mar 3:25 and if a house against itself be divided, that house cannot be made to stand;
Mar 3:26 and if the Adversary did rise against himself, and hath been divided, he cannot be made to stand, but hath an end.
Mar 3:27 `No one is able the vessels of the strong man--having entered into his house--to spoil, if first he may not bind the strong man, and then his house he will spoil.
Mar 3:28 `Verily I say to you, that all the sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and evil speakings with which they might speak evil,
Mar 3:29 but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness--to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;'
Mar 3:30 because they said, `He hath an unclean spirit.'

Again...it speaks of age during judgement.
And judgement here is the Greek word κρίσις krisis: 1) a separating, sundering, separation 1a) a trial, contest 2) selection 3) judgment 3a) opinion or decision given oncerning anything 3a1) especially concerning justice and injustice, right or wrong 3b) sentence of condemnation, damnatory judgment, condemnation and punishment 4) the college of judges (a tribunal of seven men in the several cities of Palestine; as distinguished from the Sanhedrin, which had its seat at Jerusalem) 5) right, justice

The implication is refering to age, justice, separating, and sentancing.

Lam 3:31 For the Lord will not cast off forever:
Lam 3:32 But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.
Lam 3:33 For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.
Lam 3:34 To crush under his feet all the prisoners of the earth,
Lam 3:35 To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High,
Lam 3:36 To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not.

John 3:18

“Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

If hell were not everlasting, then could it truly be considered condemnation?

Would obtaining a 30 year sentance from a judge be condemnation?

Nevertheless..look at what it actually says:
Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;
Joh 3:18 he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 `And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil;
Joh 3:20 for every one who is doing wicked things hateth the light, and doth not come unto the light, that his works may not be detected;
Joh 3:21 but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.'

Ain't talkin' 'bout Hell, dude!

Matthew 10:28

“And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.”

If Hell is only temporary, then why should there be need for fear?

You're kidding, right?

B) By Reductio ad Absurdam

First, Let us presume that indeed the word translating to “everlasting” does not indeed mean everlasting. Indeed, the term “Seculum Seculorum” (sp?) means, word for word, “From age to age,” but is considered to mean to same as “forever and ever” or “everlasting.” Let us, however, presume that it does mean a definite time. Then the same thing applies when Christ says “everlasting life.”…did Christ really mean “You will have life from age to age (as meaning a definite time period) if you believe in me”? That is absurd and, therefore, cannot be held as true. Christ's salvation is not for a finite period of time.

The words means "related to an age", a "time of indefinite duration".
Your logic is flawed, saying that a word that means age must have the exact same duration, when applied to corrective punishment and applied to the Life given by Christ.
It is, in fact, a nonsensical argument.

The Reductio ad Absurdam lies in eternal torment, not the Salvation and Life in God.

Second, let us presume that even a single soul does not desire salvation. Universal Salvation mandates that every soul be saved. If Universal Salvation is held as true, that must mean that man does not have free will. That is absurd (for obvious reasons) and, therefore, cannot be held as true.

It's an absurd presumption. Nothing more, nothing less.

C) By Infallible Decree and Tradition

Papa and the Magisterium said, therefore it is so. Nuff said.

They are wrong.

D) As According to Modern Revelation

“Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror. “

The first part of the First Secret revealed by the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children at Fatima.

From the diary of St. Faustina on this link:

http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/mercy/coming.htm

“You will prepare the world for My final coming. (Diary 429)
Speak to the world about My mercy ... It is a sign for the end times. After it will come the Day of Justice. While there is still time, let them have recourse to the fountain of My mercy. (Diary 848)
Tell souls about this great mercy of Mine, because the awful day, the day of My justice, is near. (Diary 965).
I am prolonging the time of mercy for the sake of sinners. But woe to them if they do not recognize this time of My visitation. (Diary 1160)”

Interesting that this apperition never mentions eternal torment. Important detail to leave out there, son.

F) As according to Sheer Logic as touching the nature of Sin and the nature of Eternity

First, let us define sin. “St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: ‘All sin is an aversion from God A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God.’”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
That being said, sin is properly divided into mortal and venial sin. (Or, for those of you who prefer Pauline terminology… ‘sin that is deadly’ and ‘sin that is not deadly’) Mortal sin is a sin which completely cuts off the sinner from God. Catholic teaching states that those who die in a state of unrepentant mortal sin shall burn forever in the fiery of hell. The logic is simple: When a person dies, he passes from time into eternity. (Evidence is found in one of the Pauline letters…”This mortal must put in immortal…etc.) Eternity is by necessity static.

"Eternity is by necessity static". Horse Hockey!

That being said, if a person passes from death to eternity in a state of aversion from God, then, by necessity of the Staticity of Eternity, he must remain as such.

In short, Universalism is bull.

So...your STRONGEST argument for eternal torment is a static future in which change is impossible.

In stort, Eternal Torment is bull.

 

[Apologist]

Apologist's first response

Apologist's first response

Logos, as i did not do so earlier, i would like to first and foremost thank you for your time and consideration in this debate. I am sure that you have plenty of stuff to do in your busy life. That being said, i read your opening statement, and i believe that i fully understand your position, though i very much disagree with it. With your opening statement in mind, I shall respond to your response first, and i shall respond to your opening statement afterwards.

Your argument is flawed in the extreme. Within it's logic, you have said it is not possible to save all, that Christ saves all, from sin...because of sin.
It also puts forward the absurd idea that if Christ saves all men...then nothing we do really matters. That is just stupid. If men are saved, then what would they do that wouldn't matter?

I wasn't making an argument. I was paraphrasing yours: All men are saved. Therefore nothing we do matters in the long run, because we shall all achieve heaven through Christ's death and ressurection, regardless of whether or not we accept it. Am i wrong?

If this is eternal...why does it talk about ages?

Ever thought it was merely an expression of the time? Note the example i used from the Catholic liturgy: saecula saeculòrum. It literally means "Age to age" or something similar thereof. But it is understood to mean "Forever and ever."

I'll give you the practical usage:

"Per ipsum, et c_um ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum"

Translated: "Through him, in him, and within him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor are yours, almighty Father, forever and ever." (From the liturgy of the Eucharist of the Novus Ordo)

When you start talking about "to the age" or something of that sort, you are playing a game of semantics, and the usage you are attempting to use just doesn't make sense when it is applied in that manner.

I'll use an example; you said Mark 3:29 to say this:

Mar 3:29 but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness--to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;'

That doesn't make sense!

It is generally held that "saecula saeculorum" or any greek, hebrew, etc. variance thereof means "Forever and ever" as opposed to "age to age."

And you left out verse 14 which defines the second DEATH as "death and Hades" thown into the "lake of fire (grk: Pur) and brimstone (grk: Theion)" Clearly it is talking about death and hades being overcome and put away.

As concerning that particular verse, the New American bible pointed out a footnote on Revelation 2:11

The footnote says:

Page with the footnote

The letter to Smyrna encourages the Christians in this important commercial center by telling them that although they are impoverished, they are nevertheless rich, and calls those Jews who are slandering them members of the assembly of Satan (Rev 2:9). There is no admonition; rather, the Christians are told that they will suffer much, even death, but the time of tribulation will be short compared to their eternal reward (Rev 2:10), and they will thus escape final damnation (Rev 2:11).

Notably, if you wanna use that, you also have to look at the part that verly clearly contradicts your Universalist viewpoint:

Revelation 20:15

Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire.

The pool of fire clearly isn't one of destruction, it is one of torment, as shown in Revelations 20:10.

Brimstone is a very interesting reference. It is the Greek word θεῖον theion: 1) brimstone
1a) divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off disease

[/quote]

Or how about the fact that it burns real hot and burns for a long time? Notably, how about that it is one of the most flammable non organic materials that they would have known about at that time? Note that Brimstone fire was used in Sodom and Gemmorhah (Sp?)

Genesis 19:24

at the same time the LORD rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah (from the LORD out of heaven).

Sure, John chose the word carefully....to show that just as the Lord afflicted the sinful Sodomites, so too would the condemned be afflicted.

Again, if it is refering to some kind of timeless state why talk about ages?

Perhaps it was merely a common expression? Ever thought about that? Generally, "ages" is meant to mean "forever" in those instances.

Also, notice the word translated as punishment:

κόλασις kolasis: 1) correction, punishment, penalty.

The question becomes..is this merely vindictive (and insatiable!) torment for all eternity without possibility of change? Or is it corrective in accordance with God's heart and stated intention?

I think this is a question that really sparked Univeralism. The logic behind Universalism, so i understand it, is as following: "How can there be infinite punishment for finite crimes?" Correct me if i am wrong, here. But i think that you all need to understand that the sin is not the crime in and of itself. Are you aware that Catholic theology holds that a sin is not even counted a sin unless the person performing the sin knows that the action is sinful? The crime of any sin is disobediance and aversion from God. The greater the gravity of the sin is marked by the greater the disobediance and the greater the aversion from God.

Therein lies the truth about penance. When a person performs penance, he is not making up for what he did. Simply put, we can't make up for our sins. We are incapable of repaying God, because God gave us all that we have. When you repent, you aren't making up for anything. You are converting. When you sin, and desire to sin, a conversion takes place...from desire for God to desire for whatever is sinful. Likewise, when you repent, you are turning from the desire for that which is sinful ...and you are turning back to God.

The old testement book of Hosea really gets into that. We are all likened to a harlot wife who cheats on her husband and leaves her husband for all sorts of other things. But the husband gets her back. How, you may ask?

Hosea 2:16

So I will allure her; I will lead her into the desert and speak to her heart

Did he say that he shall slay her paramours? Did he say that he shall drag her away? I think not! He said that he would -allure- her and -speak to her heart.-

It goes on in Hosea 3:2 to say that he purchased her back from her paramours:

So I bought her for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley.

And this, in the truest sense, is what happened at the crucifixion. Christ bought us back with his own blood. He paid the ransom incurred by original sin and the debts incurred by any and all future sins that we might incur. However, again, he didn't say that he would drag us back, as Universalists seem to think. He said that he would allure us, speak to our hearts, and convert us.

Hosea 3:6

Whereas they were called, "Lo-ammi," They shall be called, "Children of the living God."

This is all, of course, done in penance.

I take these two together because these verses clearly are not talking about Hell at all.This is talking about the innauguration of the New Covenant and the Judgement coming upon Jerusalem.

Concerning 22:12, the footnote in the New American Bible disagrees:

[11] A wedding garment: the repentance, change of heart and mind, that is the condition for entrance into the kingdom (Matthew 3:2; 4:17) must be continued in a life of good deeds (Matthew 7:21-23).

7 [13] Wailing and grinding of teeth: the Christian who lacks the wedding garment of good deeds will suffer the same fate as those Jews who have rejected Jesus; see the note on Matthew 8:11-12.

Away from the Jews, exclusively. It is about the transition of the Old Covenant to the New.

A) Even then, you must concede that, if indeed it is taken away from the Jews, that the Jews shall burn in hell. I am not saying that, that is what your statement seems to imply. I personally don't feel one way or the other about that.

B) Personally, that sounds to me like it goes hand in hand with the verse "many are invited, few are chosen." All are called to believe, repent, and do good deeds. But how many actually will? There are like 6 billion people in the world. Only 2 billion are marked as being Christians. Perhaps half of that actually are strong in their faith. Perhaps half of that are pious Catholics...or Protestants in a state of invincible ignorance.

His winnowing fan is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

Mar 3:23
Again...it speaks of age during judgement.

You are doing nothing but playing on semantics. I have already established the futility of translating word for word. You gotta take it as it is meant to be taken. to the age...? I think not. Forever. And ever. And ever. And ever. And ever.

Would obtaining a 30 year sentance from a judge be condemnation?

Ok, you got me on this one. However, i think that the context has to be taken into consideration. Will not be condemned....to what? Will be condemned....to what? That is the question.

Joh 3:19 `And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil;

Nuff said.

You're kidding, right?

Not at all. Christ said "Fear the one that can destroy the soul." Clearly, because the soul is indestructable, he clearly was referring to final condemnation. According to you, however, there is no final condemnation. Was Christ merely speaking to the wind here?

The words means "related to an age", a "time of indefinite duration".
Your logic is flawed, saying that a word that means age must have the exact same duration, when applied to corrective punishment and applied to the Life given by Christ.
It is, in fact, a nonsensical argument.

I think it is a very reasonable point. If you are saying that there is a specific time period as opposed to an everlasting amount, that can go either way. Is what Christ offered us anything less than "everlasting life"? If not, then neither can you suggest that there is anything less than "everlasting fire" "everlasting punishment" etc etc etc.

It's an absurd presumption. Nothing more, nothing less.

A)You didn't adress the point itself.

B) I don't think it is such an absurd presumption. Consider for a moment all of the rock solid Atheists in the world. Do you honestly think that they would accept mercy? Consider Satan who warred against God, and out of spite, hatred, and pride was cast from heaven. Do you honestly think that he would ever accept mercy against his mortal enemy?

I think not. Either you must concede A) there is everlasting hellfire or B) there is no free will.

They are wrong.

EWTN's proof of Magisterial Authority

EWTN's proof for Papal infallibility

Interesting that this apperition never mentions eternal torment. Important detail to leave out there, son.

A) If indeed there were not eternal torment, then why would the children have said that they would have "died from fear had they not been promised Heaven" presuming everyone achieves Heaven anyway?

B) Why would Jesus have said "Woe to those who do not recognize that this is the time of my mercy" if indeed Christ will have mercy on all?

"Eternity is by necessity static". Horse Hockey!

That is a plain fact. Eternity is bereft of movement, potentiality, and so forth. Therein lies the difference between time and eternity. Time: Point A, point B, Point C, point D, etc.

Eternity: Everything.

Simply put, there is no movement in Eternity because there is nothing to move towards or from. It is all there.

Therefore, Eternity is static.

That being said, my point stands.

So...your STRONGEST argument for eternal torment is a static future in which change is impossible.

An argument that you have yet to refute.

 

[logos_x]

Logos, as i did not do so earlier, i would like to first and foremost thank you for your time and consideration in this debate. I am sure that you have plenty of stuff to do in your busy life.

My pleasure.
Thank you as well.

That being said, i read your opening statement, and i believe that i fully understand your position, though i very much disagree with it. With your opening statement in mind, I shall respond to your response first, and i shall respond to your opening statement afterwards.

That's good.
If I may I also suggest that we consider responding to individual responses with separate posts...as these are getting entirely too lengthy in their current format. With that in mind I will now address the first concern you have expressed, and will leave the rest unswered for now. If there is something in your first response you want to see adressed, please bring it up again. That way it will be easier to follow for everyone.

Agreed?

Your argument is flawed in the extreme. Within it's logic, you have said it is not possible to save all, that Christ saves all, from sin...because of sin.
It also puts forward the absurd idea that if Christ saves all men...then nothing we do really matters. That is just stupid. If men are saved, then what would they do that wouldn't matter?

I wasn't making an argument. I was paraphrasing yours: All men are saved. Therefore nothing we do matters in the long run, because we shall all achieve heaven through Christ's death and ressurection, regardless of whether or not we accept it. Am i wrong?

Well, obviously, if that was actually what I was saying then it would be indefensible wouldn't it. It is not what Biblical Universalism presents at all.
What we are talking about is everyone being In Christ in the end and consequently God being all in all...not everyone just getting ino heaven regardless. When a Universalist says "reconciliation" that is indeed what is meant, and when talking about salvation we are talking about entering into a relationship with God just as much as anyone can enter into because of Christ's complete victory.

It's Universal Salvation...not Universal Injustice. It is the complete putting away of evil, not evil continuing for all eternity.

So, yes, you are wrong. You've missed the point entirely. Your "paraphrase" leaves out the distinction between saved and unsaved...and that is something I have not said at all, and no one would say if they understood salvation.

Salvation means reconciliation with God. Perhaps you have a different definition that has led to this misunderstanding.

 

[Apologist]

That's good.
If I may I also suggest that we consider responding to individual responses with separate posts...as these are getting entirely too lengthy in their current format. With that in mind I will now address the first concern you have expressed, and will leave the rest unanswered for now. If there is something in your first response you want to see adressed, please bring it up again. That way it will be easier to follow for everyone.

Agreed?

Ok.

Well, obviously, if that was actually what I was saying then it would be indefensible wouldn't it. It is not what Biblical Universalism presents at all.
What we are talking about is everyone being In Christ in the end and consequently God being all in all...not everyone just getting ino heaven regardless. When a Universalist says "reconciliation" that is indeed what is meant, and when talking about salvation we are talking about entering into a relationship with God just as much as anyone can enter into because of Christ's complete victory.

It's Universal Salvation...not Universal Injustice. It is the complete putting away of evil, not evil continuing for all eternity.

So, yes, you are wrong. You've missed the point entirely. Your "paraphrase" leaves out the distinction between saved and unsaved...and that is something I have not said at all, and no one would say if they understood salvation.

Salvation means reconciliation with God. Perhaps you have a different definition that has led to this misunderstanding.

Ok. So my paraphrase was faultility worded. Nothing matters in -this- life, because we'll all get it right eventually, is what you are saying. Groovy. Next point.

 

[logos_x]

Ok.



Ok. So my paraphrase was faultility worded. Nothing matters in -this- life, because we'll all get it right eventually, is what you are saying. Groovy. Next point.

:chuckle:

You aren't really that dense are you?

 

[Apologist]

:chuckle:

You aren't really that dense are you?

Whatever. I think we all get what Universalism is. Notably, that wasn't even a point of argument. Next point. The one concerning "saecula saeculorum" and everything along those lines.

 

[logos_x]

Whatever. I think we all get what Universalism is. Notably, that wasn't even a point of argument. Next point. The one concerning "saecula saeculorum" and everything along those lines.

This is where the Latin and the Greek really diverge.

The Greek of the Bible is very specific. Yes God is, of course, eternal. But the Bible talks in language that is describing God in relation to time. Also, while God Himself is eternal, man is not...not on his own. The Bible speaks of Christ being the King of kings and Lord of lords...and there is also specific language appllied to the ages. God is God in all ages. But there is a specific age promised in which God is all in all, and is spoken of as the Age of ages.

This was largely lost in translation when translated into Latin...and subsequently into English.

The Bible alone reveals God's plan of the ages. It unfolds with absolute reliability the mysteries of ages in the dim and misty past and points to the purpose of countless eons yet to come. The Christian Church as we know it has been living in a fool's paradise, propounding pet doctrines, ranting and raving about an endless eternity with golden streets and harps and white nightgowns for some and crackling, searing, tormenting flames for others, but almost completely overlooking God's plan of the ages.

Paul writes of this plan of the ages in Eph. 3:8-11:

"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and make all to see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."​

The word translated "eternal" in the phrase "eternal purpose" is the Greek word AIONON which means "ages."

Young's Literal Translation reads:

"And to cause all to see what is the fellowship of the secret that has been hid FROM THE AGES in God, who all things did create by Jesus Christ, that there might be made known now to the principalities and authorities in the heavenly places, through the assembly, the manifold wisdom of God, according to A PURPOSE OF THE AGES, which He made in Christ Jesus our Lord."​

Rotherham says, "According to A PLAN OF THE AGES which He made in the anointed Jesus our Lord. "

Before ever the world began or ever the ages were formed, God planned with Fatherly care the course and purpose of every age.

"In the beginning - GOD!"

In the beginning of what? Not in the beginning of God, certainly, but in the beginning of His creation of all things, in the beginning of time, in the beginning of the orderly procession of the divinely destined ages. In the beginning stands God, omnipotent and omniscient, creating, sustaining and guiding all things and all people and all the ages of time according to the purpose of His own will. No purpose ordained by God from the beginning can possibly go astray or be hindered by the efforts of devil or man. "From Him everything comes, by Him everything exists, and in Him everything ends!" (Rom. 11:36).

As men with the aid of God's Word have gazed into the vista of the future, it seems to have missed their understanding that God says very little in His Word about eternity as we have come to think of it, while devoting many hundreds of passages to His will and works wrought through THE AGES.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds" (Heb. 1:1-2).​

Wow! God has spoken to us through His Son - literally, "spoke to us in Son," or, God spoke to us in One who has the character that He is a SON, revealing the realm and relationship of sonship to God. This Son is heir of all things and, we are joint heirs with Him. "By whom also He made the worlds." Many people believe this refers to the creative act - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Actually, it does not refer to that at all. The word here for "worlds" is AIONAS. It means ages- "... by whom He made the ages."

This goes beyond His being the Creator of matter and its arrangement into multiplied billions of stars, suns, and planets with their atmospheres. This lends purpose to everything. He is the heir who gives the program for the future! He framed the ages, He ordained the end from the beginning; not only did He create everything, He did it for a purpose, and "known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18). Notice - the Amplified Bible says, "But in the last of these days He has spoken to us in the person of a Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the AGES OF TIME - that is, He made, produced, built, operated and arranged them in order! "

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God." (Heb. 11:3), but it should read, "the ages were planned by the word of God."

God made, planned, and determined the destiny of all the ages by Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator of this universe, and time and space, and there is purpose to it all. Today there is the idiotic notion that the universe is running at breakneck speed through time and space like a car that has lost the driver. The interesting thing is that when a car loses the driver there is a wreck, but this universe, even according to the scientists, has been running millions of years, and it has been doing pretty well, by the way. The sun comes up at a certain time every morning; it is very precise. The moon stays in a predictable orbit. As one of the men who works on the moon modules says, all they have to do is aim, and the moon will be there when the module gets there. This is not a mad universe in which you and I live. It has purpose, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the One who gives it purpose. HE is the architect and sovereign Lord of the ages. He formed the ages, and appointed what should be done in each of them.

It cannot be overstated. If we are to comprehend God's great plan for the ages, we must raise our eyes far above the engulfing muck and sucking quicksand of Babylonish Church tradition to keep God's people in bondage to eternal hopelessness. God has a plan of the ages! It was conceived by the omnipotent and omniscient Christ of God, the Creator and Redeemer of the world. Its successful conclusion is as sure and unfailing as God Himself is sure and unfailing. God never "flits" from one thing to another. He does not begin one work and then tiring of it, drop it and start another. He does not create what He cannot control. He is not the proverbial mad scientist who creates an uncontrollable monster. The prophet Isaiah gives us the words of God wherein God declares,

"I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isa. 46:9-10).​

God's purpose is so certain that He could declare from the very beginning just what the end would be, and that end will come to pass in just exactly that way.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.​

What drives the denial of this outcome? One thing, solely. It is the belief that God is incapable at best, and a sadistic, vindictive, and insatiable punisher at worst.

 

[Apologist]

snip

Logos_x, i read your post, and i think i pretty much grasp the meat of it, and i shall be relatively brief in my response:

You are demanding a literal translation and a very literal understanding of said literal translation. Who has ever spoken literally? That is my question to you. How do you know that AINON or whatever isn't just a figure of speach for "Forever" or "Eternity" etc etc etc.

I want you to consider the word "Right." Does right always mean the opposite of left? Not necessarily. People just don't talk that way. That's another example! Does "way" always mean path or set plan of travel? Apparently not! It can also mean "set fashion" or something of the like. You are making an incredibly bogus assumption in presuming that they meant to be taken literally word for word.

Whether or not you use the latin or the greek or the hebrew or the Martian, i think the point i used with Saecula Saeculorum remains a valid point. You can't always use it literally. You have to apply it as it is meant to be applied. I'll give another example:

Father Corrapi generally begins his talks with the following phrase:

"My dear brothers and sisters, i am delighted and edified to see over a thousand of you here today." A person who takes that literally is gonna think to himself "Wow....his parents had over a thousand children! They must have REALLY liked each other!"

Granted, there is not as much of a radical difference as that, but you can see my point, I presume. You can't always take things literally. You have to keep in mind the usage at the time, which really is something that post reformation Christian groups really have trouble with, namely because they don't really have any manner of doing that. The Orthodoxy and Catholicism have tradition by which to guide those translations and the understandings of those translations.

What drives the denial of this outcome? One thing, solely. It is the belief that God is incapable at best, and a sadistic, vindictive, and insatiable punisher at worst.

That is absurd. "Incapabable"? The phrase said that he shall bring his enemies under his feet. I certainly consider casting sinners into Hell and banishing them once and for all to fiery reprobation "casting his enemies under his feet."

Whatever the case, i believe that we have reached a quandry on this insofar as literal scriptural passage is concerned, because, ultimately, it is all a game of semantics. Next point.

On to the Reductio Ad Absurdams!

the first Reductio Ad Absurdam that i presented was:

What if there was a single soul who didn't want to go to heaven, and preferred to remain in Hell. By your logic, there is no soul who won't recieve reconciliation, and we shall all go to heaven. But what if even a single being doesn't want reconciliation? By your logic, we necessarily cannot have free will. That is an absurd presumption, and therefore the premise, universalism, cannot be held true.

The second Reductio Ad Absurdam i presented:

By your logic and your translation and your reasonings, the words mean "age to age" and something similar thereof. That places a limit on the duration of time for whatever is being described. If Hell is only "age to age," then likewise, translated literally, Christ's salvation is the same. By your logic, in literal terms, we do not have "everlasting life" but only "life from age to age." That is an absurd conclusion, therefore the premise, universalism, cannot be held as true.

 

[logos_x]

Logos_x, i read your post, and i think i pretty much grasp the meat of it, and i shall be relatively brief in my response:

You are demanding a literal translation and a very literal understanding of said literal translation. Who has ever spoken literally? That is my question to you. How do you know that AINON or whatever isn't just a figure of speach for "Forever" or "Eternity" etc etc etc.

I want you to consider the word "Right." Does right always mean the opposite of left? Not necessarily. People just don't talk that way. That's another example! Does "way" always mean path or set plan of travel? Apparently not! It can also mean "set fashion" or something of the like. You are making an incredibly bogus assumption in presuming that they meant to be taken literally word for word.

Whether or not you use the latin or the greek or the hebrew or the Martian, i think the point i used with Saecula Saeculorum remains a valid point. You can't always use it literally. You have to apply it as it is meant to be applied. I'll give another example:

Father Corrapi generally begins his talks with the following phrase:

"My dear brothers and sisters, i am delighted and edified to see over a thousand of you here today." A person who takes that literally is gonna think to himself "Wow....his parents had over a thousand children! They must have REALLY liked each other!"

Granted, there is not as much of a radical difference as that, but you can see my point, I presume. You can't always take things literally. You have to keep in mind the usage at the time, which really is something that post reformation Christian groups really have trouble with, namely because they don't really have any manner of doing that. The Orthodoxy and Catholicism have tradition by which to guide those translations and the understandings of those translations.



That is absurd. "Incapabable"? The phrase said that he shall bring his enemies under his feet. I certainly consider casting sinners into Hell and banishing them once and for all to fiery reprobation "casting his enemies under his feet."

It also says every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

The word translated confesss in this verse is ἐξομολογέω exomologeō 1) to confess 2) to profess 2a) acknowledge openly and joyfully 2b) to one’s honour: to celebrate, give praise to 2c) to profess that one will do something, to promise, agree, engage


I do not believe that is a coerced response. If you think it is, I think it is your view that needs the most proving.

Your appeal to traditional teaching is merely an argument for tradition...nothing else to it.
I believe the authors of scripture were inspired and knew what they meant to say.

Whatever the case, i believe that we have reached a quandry on this insofar as literal scriptural passage is concerned, because, ultimately, it is all a game of semantics. Next point.

Words mean something. If they don't, then we know nothing for certain.

On to the Reductio Ad Absurdams!

the first Reductio Ad Absurdam that i presented was:

What if there was a single soul who didn't want to go to heaven, and preferred to remain in Hell. By your logic, there is no soul who won't recieve reconciliation, and we shall all go to heaven. But what if even a single being doesn't want reconciliation? By your logic, we necessarily cannot have free will. That is an absurd presumption, and therefore the premise, universalism, cannot be held true.

On the contrary, your premise is an absurd "what if".
"What if" someone doesn't want to be saved? Obviously this person would be quite insane, and in need of serious help.
Basing your whole doctrine of Hell on the desires of the insane is, well...insane.

The second Reductio Ad Absurdam i presented:

By your logic and your translation and your reasonings, the words mean "age to age" and something similar thereof. That places a limit on the duration of time for whatever is being described. If Hell is only "age to age," then likewise, translated literally, Christ's salvation is the same. By your logic, in literal terms, we do not have "everlasting life" but only "life from age to age." That is an absurd conclusion, therefore the premise, universalism, cannot be held as true.

On the contrary.
You do understand that Life is quite different than punishment. Life, by it's very nature, continues indefinatly so long as nothing removes it. Life will continue as long as God upholds it.
Punishment is for correction. Once the correction is accomplished, or the sentance satisfied, one is released from punishment. If it were not so, then it accomplishes absolutely nothing for the one being punished. What is absurd is the idea that eternal punishment accomplishes anything at all if the word is seen as the duration of the punishment rather than the source and the reason for the punishment.

Now...if universal salvation is in fact what God intends, then calling it absurd would be calling God a fool and His revealed will a lie
____________________________________________________________________

Now...let me say something to clarify Bible interpretation.

You see, here is the problem I'm trying to address here

Apart from the spirit of revelation, which comes from above and not from ourselves, the Bible can really be made to say anything we want it to say. Look at the thousands of denominations each based upon differences of interpretation of basically the same Bible. Most Christian cults are even more intense in Bible study than average church-goers and they often come up with some very bizarre teachings. Most people are usually sincere in their beliefs. They really believe they have the truth. But until we have what Peter received when Jesus asked him Who He was ... until then, we only have knowledge which gets filtered through our culturally conditioned mind. The Scriptures, apart from the spirit of revelation often produces horrible systems of belief. Few of us are honest enough with ourselves to cry out to God to be completely set free from the traditions of men, from cultural, parental, political mind-sets which effect how we read the Scriptures.

The teaching of eternal torment has permeated the Western civilization for about 1500 years. Few realize the early believers were not indoctrinated into this mind-set by Christian leaders. Today it is not long before a child, even though never having read a Bible. is exposed to the doctrine of eternal torment as fact. It is important to be absolutely certain regarding such an important subject whether we are reading the Bible through pre-conditioned eyes or through enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. Ask God to reveal through the spirit of revelation all of His attributes and character. One must not know His love, power, omnipresence, mercy through words on a page, one must receive these things by the spirit. Then the Bible will be read with clear eyes of understanding. Then the Bible will confirm what the spirit has revealed.

Peter did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God because he properly interpreted the Scriptures prophesying a Messiah. It was revealed to him by our Father. Upon this is the body of Christ built, not upon Bible interpretation. Interpretation produces division, revelation supported with Scripture produces unity. Revelation first, then the Scriptures will witness to the revelation.

A person may read the Bible and believe what he reads based upon the fact that people have told him it was the word of God. Some may read it because it is the most widely published book in the world. A person may decide to go to church and become a Baptist, Methodist, etc., as a result and yet still not have true understanding. The natural mind may spend years studying the Bible and produce very carnal and often very evil systems of belief. I was amazed reading a Ku Klux Klan paper at how often they quoted Scripture to justify their hate. How are we delivered from this deception? Humility, brokenness, sincerity of heart, child-like faith, a willingness to acknowledge that we really know very little of the ways of the Creator of the Universe, these are some of the steps to deliverance. But true deliverance comes when the spirit of revelation brings light..

Now concerning most of those who believe in the salvation of all mankind, most of those I an aquainted with who believe(d) in this teaching, have come to this conclusion by revelation and/or intense study of the Bible, church history, language studies, etc. They often are severely persecuted for their beliefs, not by the world systems, but by the church systems. They have cried out in earnestness to our Father for truth because they would have gladly abandoned this teaching to avoid the severe persecution which their entire family suffers at the hands of the "orthodox." We are not masochists. We do not long for cold stares, whisperings behind our backs, hate letters, being called wolves, anti-Christ, and a host of other defaming names. Could we wash away this humiliation and be accepted by our other Christian brothers and sisters, we would most gladly give up this rejection up, but not at the cost of maligning the precious name of our Father. We would rather receive the praises from above than compromise the glory of our Father and exchange it for the praises from man.

The Scriptures declare to, "Study to shew yourselves approved." Having been in the "Hell-fire brand of theology and in the camp of the Saints who have entered into their rest, I can say from years of observation that those who believe in the Salvation of All Mankind are usually more diligent in their endeavor to study the Scriptures and "sincere prayers" with proper motives than those locked up in the fear of "eternal torments." Those who embrace the Lamb of God slain for the sin of the whole world, discover the truth that Paul was certainly correct in his assessment that the height, length, breadth, and width of God's Love was immeasurable. There is no end to it and "Love never fails." Those embracing the Eternal Tormentor can never discover these and hundreds of Scriptures to ever come true because their "Heaven" is usually much smaller than their "Hell."

But what of those whose mentality says, "My belief in a "Hell of torture" is "safer" to believe because at least that way I am sure of being "in"-what can we ascertain from such a view? If they are wrong, then they spent their entire life maligning God's name and character to the whole of creation. But they will say, "Well, God will understand. I just wanted to be sure I was in." What kind of spirit is this? Do not the Scriptures tell us that the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom?" The fear spoken of here is a reverence, a respect, a lifting up His being above our own. It speaks of exalting Him, magnifying Him, glorifying Him. Those who preach a "Hell" because it is "safer" reveal to the world they are thinking of themselves, not of glorifying God in the highest. They have given themselves away. It is clear this kind of person has not laid down their lives. They are still very much into themselves. They cannot enter into the promised "rest." Their "religious works" will hopefully "earn" them a place in the kingdom.

A religious person is probably the most "stinky" thing on the face of the earth. But amazingly, that kind of individual loves their own stink and no one can dissuade them from it. This kind of individual is locked in their own "hell" already and seek to enlarge it by bringing others under their power. The church buildings of the world and the temples of the world are full of these kind of people-putting burdens upon the backs of God's people which the Lord did not command-placing fear into their minds which never allows them to enter into the rest of the Good Shepherd - fleecing and devouring the sheep for the benefit of their own religious kingdom, no matter how small.

I was like this. The Church made me that way. But God had other plans.
I didn't figure this all out, Apologist. God showed it to me, as surely as He showed Peter Who Jesus is. It has nothing to do with my own efforts, it was revealed, by the Spirit. Until then I was just like everyone else...someone trying to please God and not go to eternal torment for my efforts.

I can share what has been revealed to me...and show how much scripture backs it up...but in the end, no one gets this until God shows it to you. My efforts are to show that it is Biblical so you can recieve what the Spirit says without wondering if you are going off the deep end.

 

[Apologist]

do not believe that is a coerced response. If you think it is, I think it is your view that needs the most proving.

Something i am noticing. A lot of these Greek words by your own admission have multiple meanings. You are going with the translation that most agrees with your point of view. However, in the basest sense, the word means "confess." That is the word that is there in the possible definitions you gave, that is the one that has been accepted as being the intended definition. Coerced? That's not even the question. Are you not gonna openly say "Crap! He is Lord!" if foresaid Just Judge picks you up by the back of the neck and tosses you into the firely lake?

I believe the authors of scripture were inspired and knew what they meant to say.

I am not saying that they didn't know what they meant to say; i am saying that you don't know what they meant to say.

Words mean something. If they don't, then we know nothing for certain.

I'll quote an English teacher of mine.

Word's don't mean a thing until they're used.

On the contrary, your premise is an absurd "what if".
"What if" someone doesn't want to be saved? Obviously this person would be quite insane, and in need of serious help.
Basing your whole doctrine of Hell on the desires of the insane is, well...insane.

It's really not that absurd.

A ) Concerning Human Souls

I'll quote Dante on this one as concerning human souls.

"They long for what they fear the most"

Imprinted upon the hearts of all men is the natural law. Deeply engraved in the natural law in the heart of every man is Justice. Yet what is it that each and every one of the wicked fears? Justice.

"And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed." John 3:19

Tell me, does not each and every man desire God? Absolutely. Is God not infinately Just? Absolutely, God is infinately Just. Therefore does not every innately man desire Justice? You'd better believe it.

"Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father." Matthew 10:33

You keep saying that eternal damnation is unjust, and that eternal damnation is not proportionate to the crime, yet you continuously avoid naming the crime. What is the crime? Rejection of God. That is the only sin. However venial the sin, however great the sin...that is the root of each and every sin.

Tell me: If the crime is rejection, what then, is the counterbalance? Rejection.

If man says to God "I do not know you" what then is the reasonable punishment? God shall say the same. Therefore, if man innitately desires Justice, and the soul is the highest reflection of God in man, then how can the soul tend towards anything other than Justice?

I propose, comrade, that because each and every soul longs for Justice, that a sinner condemned desires that condemnation; his very being demands it.

How can he possibly want salvation if his very inmost being demands condemnation?

B ) As concerning the Angels

I was watching EWTN a while back, and there was this one delightful priest was explaining the nature of the angels. At the very basic form of life, there is matter (for example, plants and the like). Above that is matter and intellect (man). Therefore above that there is something that is purely intellect, unrestrained by matter, and thereby possessing a very much more true intellect. Understand something:

You as a man are capable of understanding a subject...as a general field. You know mandkind as a whole.

The Angels are capable of understanding a subject...as comprising each and every bit of that subject. The angels know Bob, and Tommy, and Cindy, and Susie, and George, etc.

The Angels know each and every consequence for each and every possible action and course. Therefore, when they make a decision, it is irrevocable, because when they choose to do something, they, aside from choosing the substance of itself, they are choosing the consequences. Therefore when Satan and his angels rejected God, they fully understood what that meant. There is no going back for an angel.

C ) In conclusion as concerning Man and Angels

To say that either one of the damned or one of the fallen Angels would desire Salvation is to spit in their faces. To say that either one can be saved is to say that neither has free will. That is an absurd conclusion. Therefore the premise, Universalism, is false.

Punishment is for correction. Once the correction is accomplished, or the sentance satisfied, one is released from punishment.

Ever heard of the death penalty? There is neither correction nor release after someone is given the death penalty. Hell is the death penalty of eternity.

Apart from the spirit of revelation, which comes from above and not from ourselves, the Bible can really be made to say anything we want it to say.

:thumb: :duh: No, really?

Look at the thousands of denominations each based upon differences of interpretation of basically the same Bible.

Well, there's only 1 Catholic Church.... :bannana:

Few of us are honest enough with ourselves to cry out to God to be completely set free from the traditions of men

Don't even go there. Everything you say after this is based on that one extremely biased statement, and frankly isn't reliable proof for or against the topic at hand.

 

[logos_x]

Something i am noticing. A lot of these Greek words by your own admission have multiple meanings. You are going with the translation that most agrees with your point of view. However, in the basest sense, the word means "confess." That is the word that is there in the possible definitions you gave, that is the one that has been accepted as being the intended definition. Coerced? That's not even the question. Are you not gonna openly say "Crap! He is Lord!" if foresaid Just Judge picks you up by the back of the neck and tosses you into the firely lake?

I used to think just that. Then I studied.

Here is a brief:

There are two Greek words translated "confess" in the New Testament:

ὁμολογέω homologeo: 1) to say the same thing as another, i.e. to agree with, assent 2) to concede 2a) not to refuse, to promise 2b) not to deny 2b1) to confess 2b2) declare 2b3) to confess, i.e. to admit or declare one’s self guilty of what one is accused of
3) to profess 3a) to declare openly, speak out freely 3b) to profess one’s self the worshipper of one 4) to praise, celebrate.​

This word is used in the following verses for example:

Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Luk 12:8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luk 12:9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

Joh 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.


Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.​

The other word translated "confess" is:

ἐξομολογέω exomologeō: 1) to confess 2) to profess 2a) acknowledge openly and joyfully 2b) to one’s honour: to celebrate, give praise to 2c) to profess that one will do something, to promise, agree, engage.​

This word is used in the following verses:

Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Phi 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.​

And it is also translated "thanks" in the following verse:

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.​

The meaning you are attempting to assign to the word does not line up with the overall meaning of the word.


Nevertheless, regardless of which meaning you might desire to ascribe to either of the above words, there is still the following verse:

1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.​

So, 'splain sumthin' Lucy...how can this be?

I am not saying that they didn't know what they meant to say; i am saying that you don't know what they meant to say.

Rrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiigght.

I'll quote an English teacher of mine.

Word's don't mean a thing until they're used.

Exactly!

It's really not that absurd.

Yes it is.

A ) Concerning Human Souls

I'll quote Dante on this one as concerning human souls.

Augustine and his "City of God", Dante's Inferno, Milton's "Paradise Lost"...were the driving force behind the eternal torment doctrine taking hold of the Church.

In other word's, their influence affected everything negatively. They represent precisely what is wrong.

Their writings are not the Word of God.

Imprinted upon the hearts of all men is the natural law. Deeply engraved in the natural law in the heart of every man is Justice. Yet what is it that each and every one of the wicked fears? Justice.

Tell me, does not each and every man desire God? Absolutely. Is God not infinately Just? Absolutely, God is infinately Just. Therefore does not every innately man desire Justice? You'd better believe it.

I thought part of your argument was that those in Hell do not desire God.

You keep saying that eternal damnation is unjust, and that eternal damnation is not proportionate to the crime, yet you continuously avoid naming the crime. What is the crime? Rejection of God. That is the only sin. However venial the sin, however great the sin...that is the root of each and every sin.

Tell me: If the crime is rejection, what then, is the counterbalance? Rejection.

I'm still waiting for you to make a point.

If man says to God "I do not know you" what then is the reasonable punishment? God shall say the same. Therefore, if man innitately desires Justice, and the soul is the highest reflection of God in man, then how can the soul tend towards anything other than Justice?

I propose, comrade, that because each and every soul longs for Justice, that a sinner condemned desires that condemnation; his very being demands it.

How can he possibly want salvation if his very inmost being demands condemnation?

What is worse?
To be sinned against, or to be made a sinner?

What you are describing is presicely what man is saved from, Apologist.
So what point are you trying to make? That justice demands eternal torment with no escape, no hope? Evil continues for all eternity under conditions of burning torture because justice demands it?

What purpose of God would be served by this?
What causes this to continue?

I'm reminded of something Augustine was asked concerning this whole issue. He was asked that, if Hell is eternal fiery torture, what keeps them alive and conscious in the flames?
His response?
"God has the ability to perform miracles, and will employ this ability to keep people alive and conscious and will not allow them to be consumed forever."

I don't know....seems to me that just might not be entirely accurate. :think:

Justice? That men desire condemnation and not reconciliation, therefore they burn forever.

Nope..I'm sorry.
It doesn't sound right, doesn't feel right, doesn't sit right with my spirit, nor my soul. Doesn't have one thing to say about Christ's victory, denies fully the scriptural testimony....

I think this just might be flat out error.

B ) As concerning the Angels

I was watching EWTN a while back, and there was this one delightful priest was explaining the nature of the angels. At the very basic form of life, there is matter (for example, plants and the like). Above that is matter and intellect (man). Therefore above that there is something that is purely intellect, unrestrained by matter, and thereby possessing a very much more true intellect. Understand something:

You as a man are capable of understanding a subject...as a general field. You know mandkind as a whole.

The Angels are capable of understanding a subject...as comprising each and every bit of that subject. The angels know Bob, and Tommy, and Cindy, and Susie, and George, etc.

The Angels know each and every consequence for each and every possible action and course. Therefore, when they make a decision, it is irrevocable, because when they choose to do something, they, aside from choosing the substance of itself, they are choosing the consequences. Therefore when Satan and his angels rejected God, they fully understood what that meant. There is no going back for an angel.

This is another topic altogether, but I'll touch on it briefly since you saw fit to bring it up.

None of this is in God's word.
NONE of it.
Nada.
Zip.

C ) In conclusion as concerning Man and Angels

To say that either one of the damned or one of the fallen Angels would desire Salvation is to spit in their faces. To say that either one can be saved is to say that neither has free will. That is an absurd conclusion. Therefore the premise, Universalism, is false.

That has got to be the most ridiculous assertion I've ever encountered.
I don't even know how to repond to such an incredibly stupid pronouncement.

Who formulated this argument? I'd really like to congratulate them for being such an idiot.
I wonder if they tried really hard to be ludicrous, or if this genius came by it naturally.

Ever heard of the death penalty? There is neither correction nor release after someone is given the death penalty. Hell is the death penalty of eternity.

How about resurrection? Ever hear of that? Everyone will be raised...or has this little part of death's utter and complete obliteration escaped your attention entirely?

Well, there's only 1 Catholic Church.... :bannana:

That's one too many. :chuckle:

Don't even go there. Everything you say after this is based on that one extremely biased statement, and frankly isn't reliable proof for or against the topic at hand.

Yeah....seems to me the Pharisees had pretty much the same thing to say. Things haven't really changed all that much in 2000 years it seems.

 

[Apologist]

snip

Question: What ethnicity was Paul? Jew! From...? Judah! What language would they have spoken? Either Hebrew or Arab. I think not! Do you not think that it is slightly possible that Paul, though he was a scholar in Greek, didn't fully comprehend the meaning between two highly similar words of a foreign language? They practically mean the same thing, save for a slight difference in willingness to concede whatever is being confessed, and that is only in a couple of the definitions. Both words mean "confess." Is it not possible that you are looking way too deeply into it?

1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.​

A) Spirit. From now on, use the words "Holy Spirit." Just sounds better. :thumb:

B) Can you give me any verse in which St. Paul says that if the holy spirit acts upon someone, he is assured salvation? I am gonna let the issue hang until you answer that.

Augustine and his "City of God",

I can't comment on that one, namely because I didn't read it yet. Though since you keep talking about it, I am really, really wanting to!

Dante's Inferno, Milton's "Paradise Lost"...were the driving force behind the eternal torment doctrine taking hold of the Church.

Read the entirety of the Divine Comedy and the first book or two of Paradise lost, and skimmed through the rest. Concerning those two: The Church's dogma on Hell preceded those two books. They wrote on what they understood based on Church teaching. Dante, though he was a layman, had a very thorough grasp of Church theology. Granted, i am not saying that souls shall be punished via symbolic retribution. But each soul's punishment shall differ in intensity based on the degree of their crimes, though all souls shall suffer in that intensity for all eternity.

In other word's, their influence affected everything negatively. They represent precisely what is wrong.

Bah, humbugh!

I thought part of your argument was that those in Hell do not desire God.

No no, i didn't say that. All souls innately desire God; that is a plain fact...a little Catholic theology lesson on sin for you. When a person sins, a two fold mark is left on the soul. There is a degree of Guilt and a degree of Punishment that is incurred for each sin. The difference between Guilt and Punishment:

The punishment incurred is either the severity of the suffering one will recieve in Hell or the duration and severity of suffering one shall recieve in Purgatory. Punishment alone can be cleansed in Purgatory. Even if your soul is downright gray with the soot incurred by Punishment, you are, in the long run, just fine. Granted, you are gonna suffer your butt off in Purgatory. But in the long run, you'll get there.

On the flipside...there's Guilt. Guilt is the aversion from God incurred by each Sin. When a person sins, he averts himself from God's love and mercy. He turns away. God is always there with open arms...but we are not always willing to step into that embrace. When we sin, he turn away...when we sin Mortally, we turn our backs completely on God. Therefore, when you die in that state of aversion, your back is turned on God...you have denied his Love and Mercy...but your soul still seeks Justice. Enter Eternal Damnation. Guilt cannot be purged. Guilt cannot be cleansed. You cannot pay for Guilt. You can pay out the punishment. You cannot pay for the guilt. You have to feel sorry your sins and ask for forgiveness...and, if it is a Mortal Sin...intend to confess to a Priest.

What is worse?
To be sinned against, or to be made a sinner?

Explain the relevency?

What you are describing is presicely what man is saved from, Apologist.
So what point are you trying to make? That justice demands eternal torment with no escape, no hope?

Absolutely!

Evil continues for all eternity under conditions of burning torture because justice demands it?

Yup.

What purpose of God would be served by this?
What causes this to continue?

Have you ever considered that it may magnify the joy of the Saints? Consider something. Would you know health if you did not know sickness? Would you know pardon if you did not know condemnation?

The Saints are going to be those who admitted their own frailty, and asked God for forgiveness. The Saints have saught his mercy. The Saints have perservered in their love for God. At the end of time, the Saints (past, present, and future) shall look first on the torment of the damned. They shall realize what they have been saved from...what they have avoided...and they shall rejoice they aren't there. Then they shall look upon Heaven, and rejoice further...for that is what they have been saved for.

"God has the ability to perform miracles, and will employ this ability to keep people alive and conscious and will not allow them to be consumed forever."

Sounds good to me :thumb::duh:

This is another topic altogether, but I'll touch on it briefly since you saw fit to bring it up.

It is Catholic Theology, so it is valid in my book. It had to come from somewhere, right? :jump:

That has got to be the most ridiculous assertion I've ever encountered.
I don't even know how to repond to such an incredibly stupid pronouncement.

Who formulated this argument? I'd really like to congratulate them for being such an idiot.
I wonder if they tried really hard to be ludicrous, or if this genius came by it naturally.

That was the most stupid attempt at a refutation i've ever encountered. I don't even know how to respond to such an incredibly stupid attempt to refute. Who formulated that refutation? I'd really like to congratulate him or her (not them)...pronoun/antecedent agreement...for being such an idiot. I wonder if he or she tried really hard to be ludicrous, or if this genius came naturally. :chuckle:

How about resurrection? Ever hear of that? Everyone will be raised...or has this little part of death's utter and complete obliteration escaped your attention entirely?

Have you ever heard of a metaphor?

That's one too many. :chuckle:

That's another topic for another day for another one on one.

Yeah....seems to me the Pharisees had pretty much the same thing to say. Things haven't really changed all that much in 2000 years it seems.

Bah humbugh!

 

[logos_x]

Question: What ethnicity was Paul? Jew! From...? Judah! What language would they have spoken? Either Hebrew or Arab. I think not! Do you not think that it is slightly possible that Paul, though he was a scholar in Greek, didn't fully comprehend the meaning between two highly similar words of a foreign language? They practically mean the same thing, save for a slight difference in willingness to concede whatever is being confessed, and that is only in a couple of the definitions. Both words mean "confess." Is it not possible that you are looking way too deeply into it?

You said it yourself, quoting your teacher, "Word's don't mean a thing until they're used"

Now, go back and look at all those verses I quoted above and see what they say.
Better yet, here they are again:

Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Luk 12:8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luk 12:9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

Joh 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Phi 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

And it is also translated "thanks" in the following verse:

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.​

Over all, I'd have to say, "No, I'm not looking too deeply into it".

A) Spirit. From now on, use the words "Holy Spirit." Just sounds better. :thumb:

Yeah, tell that to the weirdos that think there's a difference between "ghost" and "spirit".
That was a quoted verse from the KJV. Their words, not mine.

(BTW...I agree, it does sound better )

B) Can you give me any verse in which St. Paul says that if the holy spirit acts upon someone, he is assured salvation? I am gonna let the issue hang until you answer that.

Can you give me a verse in which anyone says the Holy Spirit enables anyone without salvation?

Read the entirety of the Divine Comedy and the first book or two of Paradise lost, and skimmed through the rest. Concerning those two: The Church's dogma on Hell preceded those two books. They wrote on what they understood based on Church teaching. Dante, though he was a layman, had a very thorough grasp of Church theology. Granted, i am not saying that souls shall be punished via symbolic retribution. But each soul's punishment shall differ in intensity based on the degree of their crimes, though all souls shall suffer in that intensity for all eternity.

They made it all up. Yes, based on a dogma that souls suffer forever. At the time, it was not what all Christians believed, far from it.

I also seem to recall that Dante wrote the Divine Comedy because of his anger over some political improprieties at his expense...and he put his enemies in the comedy exposing their various offenses.

Bah, humbugh!

Hallelujah!

No no, i didn't say that. All souls innately desire God; that is a plain fact...a little Catholic theology lesson on sin for you. When a person sins, a two fold mark is left on the soul. There is a degree of Guilt and a degree of Punishment that is incurred for each sin. The difference between Guilt and Punishment:

The punishment incurred is either the severity of the suffering one will recieve in Hell or the duration and severity of suffering one shall recieve in Purgatory. Punishment alone can be cleansed in Purgatory. Even if your soul is downright gray with the soot incurred by Punishment, you are, in the long run, just fine. Granted, you are gonna suffer your butt off in Purgatory. But in the long run, you'll get there.

On the flipside...there's Guilt. Guilt is the aversion from God incurred by each Sin. When a person sins, he averts himself from God's love and mercy. He turns away. God is always there with open arms...but we are not always willing to step into that embrace. When we sin, he turn away...when we sin Mortally, we turn our backs completely on God. Therefore, when you die in that state of aversion, your back is turned on God...you have denied his Love and Mercy...but your soul still seeks Justice. Enter Eternal Damnation. Guilt cannot be purged. Guilt cannot be cleansed. You cannot pay for Guilt. You can pay out the punishment. You cannot pay for the guilt. You have to feel sorry your sins and ask for forgiveness...and, if it is a Mortal Sin...intend to confess to a Priest.

So...according to Catholic Theology, there is eternal punishment because Guilt cannot be purged....:think: And this is personal guilt to boot...not that God is holding anything against them, because His Son paid for all of it.

So...let me boil this down. Heaven is full of forgiven sinners made righteous. Hell is full of forgiven sinners that are not ever going to be, because they themselves feel they don't deserve what the others have.

That seems to be what you are saying. Am I wrong?

So, why doesn't God just annihilate them? Why even keep them around?

Ummm...you got something to back that up or are we expected to just take your word for it?

Explain the relevency?

The question is a simple one. Which is worse? To be sinned against, or to be made the sinner?

Your premise was that because God is infinite...sin against Him it also infinite and deserves infinite punishment.

But God does not count our trespasses against us, and we are commanded to do the same when we are trespassed against...to forgive 70 X 7.

The Judge is also the Savior. He has done everything necessary for us to be reconciled to Him. You say that this provision ceases at the moment we die physically.

Where does God say this?

Absolutely!



Yup.

:thumb:

Have you ever considered that it may magnify the joy of the Saints? Consider something. Would you know health if you did not know sickness? Would you know pardon if you did not know condemnation?

I've considered it.
And reject the notion as patently false reasoning when applied to eternal torment. Now, if Hell is corrective, only then would it be a valid idea.

The Saints are going to be those who admitted their own frailty, and asked God for forgiveness. The Saints have saught his mercy. The Saints have perservered in their love for God. At the end of time, the Saints (past, present, and future) shall look first on the torment of the damned. They shall realize what they have been saved from...what they have avoided...and they shall rejoice they aren't there. Then they shall look upon Heaven, and rejoice further...for that is what they have been saved for.

Well, then...lets find a kitten, put it in the microwave and turn it on, and then delight that we aren't suffering like the kitten, and then find a way to prolong that experience forever.

That is what you are saying God is going to allow for eternity..not to a kitten...but to people. Billions of them.

Rejoice? If I ever get to the place where I could rejoice at such a thing I think I would be a pretty big sinner. Maybe that's just me. I think I would weep forever, knowing that it could've been me, certainly, but also over their unnecessary suffering.

Sounds good to me :thumb::duh:

Ok.

It is Catholic Theology, so it is valid in my book. It had to come from somewhere, right? :jump:

:vomit:

Can you say, "Satan".

That was the most stupid attempt at a refutation i've ever encountered. I don't even know how to respond to such an incredibly stupid attempt to refute. Who formulated that refutation? I'd really like to congratulate him or her (not them)...pronoun/antecedent agreement...for being such an idiot. I wonder if he or she tried really hard to be ludicrous, or if this genius came naturally. :chuckle:

C'mon Apologist. These billions of souls are about to be thrown into eternal torment...and your worried that God...or anyone else...is going to spit in their faces?

What is there to refute?

Have you ever heard of a metaphor?

So...Catholics think resurrection is a metaphor?
Ok...I'll bite....a metaphor for what?

That's another topic for another day for another one on one.

I'm not surprised that you don't want to get into that here. :chuckle:

Bah humbugh!

Hallelujah!

 

[Apologist]

snip

One thing concerning the "every mouth shall confess that Jesus is lord." It says "those in heaven and on earth and under the earth."

I personally am getting that his Supremacy and Godhead is going to be openly acknowledged as triumphant. That really says more about Christ's authority than the disposition of those acknowledging it.

They made it all up. Yes, based on a dogma that souls suffer forever. At the time, it was not what all Christians believed, far from it.

The Dogma of purgatory, from what i understand, was around -way- before Dante and Milton. That tells me that Eternal Damnation was the standard long before they got there.

I also seem to recall that Dante wrote the Divine Comedy because of his anger over some political improprieties at his expense...and he put his enemies in the comedy exposing their various offenses.

Yes, it was a political satire. However, it did express some very deep theological concepts

So...according to Catholic Theology, there is eternal punishment because Guilt cannot be purged....:think: And this is personal guilt to boot...not that God is holding anything against them, because His Son paid for all of it.

Absolutely. They themselves chose not to say "Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy." God's mercy knows no bounds. A man's acceptance of that mercy does.

So...let me boil this down. Heaven is full of forgiven sinners made righteous.

Yup

Hell is full of forgiven sinners that are not ever going to be, because they themselves feel they don't deserve what the others have.

The thought process is right, but the wording isn't. Technically, you have to ask forgiveness to recieve it. "Ask and ye shall recieve, seek and ye shall find."

That seems to be what you are saying. Am I wrong?

Pretty much.

So, why doesn't God just annihilate them? Why even keep them around?

Because God created us for Eternity. The soul is made indestructable.

The question is a simple one. Which is worse? To be sinned against, or to be made the sinner?

The sin itself i presume would be worse. I don't understand.

Your premise was that because God is infinite...sin against Him it also infinite and deserves infinite punishment.

Righteo.

But God does not count our trespasses against us, and we are commanded to do the same when we are trespassed against...to forgive 70 X 7.

Absolutely.

The Judge is also the Savior. He has done everything necessary for us to be reconciled to Him. You say that this provision ceases at the moment we die physically.

I didn't say the provision ceases. I merely said that man's capacity to accept it ceases.

Well, then...lets find a kitten, put it in the microwave and turn it on, and then delight that we aren't suffering like the kitten, and then find a way to prolong that experience forever.

That is what you are saying God is going to allow for eternity..not to a kitten...but to people. Billions of them.

Rejoice? If I ever get to the place where I could rejoice at such a thing I think I would be a pretty big sinner. Maybe that's just me. I think I would weep forever, knowing that it could've been me, certainly, but also over their unnecessary suffering.

The flaw in your thinking is simple. The kitten is innocent. The damned are not.

So...Catholics think resurrection is a metaphor?
Ok...I'll bite....a metaphor for what?

...The death penalty was a metaphor!


Whatever the case, i do believe that this portion of the argument has run its course, and i believe everything has been fully presented on both sides here. Let us move on to the next portion:

D) As According to Modern Revelation

“Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror. “

The first part of the First Secret revealed by the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children at Fatima.

From the diary of St. Faustina on this link:

http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/mercy/coming.htm

“You will prepare the world for My final coming. (Diary 429)
Speak to the world about My mercy ... It is a sign for the end times. After it will come the Day of Justice. While there is still time, let them have recourse to the fountain of My mercy. (Diary 848)
Tell souls about this great mercy of Mine, because the awful day, the day of My justice, is near. (Diary 965).
I am prolonging the time of mercy for the sake of sinners. But woe to them if they do not recognize this time of My visitation. (Diary 1160)”

Here, i add one: The Fifth prayer of St. Bridget.

"O Jesus! Mirror of eternal splendor, remember the sadness Thou experienced, when contemplating in the light of thy Divinity the predestination of those who would be saved by the merits of thy Sacred Passion, Thou didst see at the same time, the great multitude of reprobates who would be damned for their sins, and thou didn't complain bitterly of those hopeless, lost, and unfortunate sinners.

Through this abyss of compassion and pity, and especially through the goodness which Thou didn't display to the Good Thief when thou saidst to him 'This day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise.' I beg of thee, O Sweet Jesus, that at the hour of my death, Thou wilt show me mercy. Amen."

(We'll save part C of my argument for the very end, for apparent reasons.)

 

[logos_x]

Apparent reasons?

Ok...I'll be here.

 

[Apologist]

Apparent reasons?

Ok...I'll be here.

Huh? Is that your response to the stuff i gave?

Edit: You misunderstood me, i think. Of the articles A-E of my argument stated in the original post, i want to save Papal and Magisterial Authority for the end. Right now, i want to debate you concerning Modern Revelation.

 

[logos_x]

Huh? Is that your response to the stuff i gave?

Edit: You misunderstood me, i think. Of the articles A-E of my argument stated in the original post, i want to save Papal and Magisterial Authority for the end. Right now, i want to debate you concerning Modern Revelation.

Ok.
So...you are citing the Visitation at Fatima again...to which I already responded that no mention is made of Hell being eternal in the portion you cited.
The new portion is a prayer of St. Bridget. I assume this is another portion of the Fatima documentation. I still do not see any reason to change to a belief in eternal torment in what you cite.

But...there is revelation on my side of the debate as well...and I will quote a portion of one such revelation below:

From Hannah Whitall Smith's Autobiography "The Unselfishness of God and How I Discovered it"

I had been used to hearing a great deal about the awfulness of our sins against God, but now I asked myself, what about the awfulness of our fate in having been made sinners? Would I not infinitely rather that a sin should be committed against myself, than that I should commit a sin against any one else? Was it not a far more dreadful thing to be made a sinner than to be merely sinned against? And I began to see that, since God had permitted sin to enter into the world, it must necessarily be that He would be compelled, in common fairness, to provide a remedy that would be equal to the disease. I remembered some mothers I had known, with children suffering from inherited diseases, who were only too thankful to lay down their lives in self-sacrifice for their children, if so be they might, in any way, be able to undo the harm they had done in bringing them into the world under such disastrous conditions and I asked myself, Could God do less? I saw that, when weighed in a balance of wrong done, we, who had been created sinners, had infinitely more to forgive than any one against whom we might have sinned.

The vividness with which all this came to me can never be expressed. I did not think it, or imagine it, or suppose it. I saw it. It was a revelation of the real nature of things--not according to the surface conventional ideas, but according to the actual bottom facts--and it could not be gainsaid.

In every human face I saw, there seemed to be unveiled before me the story of the misery and anguish caused by the entrance of sin into the world. I knew that God must see this with far clearer eyes than mine, and therefore I felt sure that the sufferings of this sight to Him must be infinitely beyond what it was to me, almost unbearable as that seemed. And I began to understand how it was that the least He could do would be to embrace with untold gladness anything that would help to deliver the being He had created for such awful misery.

It was a never to be forgotten insight into the world's anguish because of sin. How long it lasted I cannot remember, but, while it lasted, it almost crushed me. And as it always came afresh at the sight of a strange face, I found myself obliged to wear a thick veil whenever I went into the streets, in order that I might spare myself the awful realization.One day I was riding on a tram-car along Market Street, Philadelphia, when I saw two men come in and seat themselves opposite to me. I saw them dimly through in veil, but congratulated myself that it was only dimly, as I was thus spared the wave of anguish that had so often swept over me at the full sight of a strange face. The conductor came for his fare, and I was obliged to raise my veil in order to count it out. As I raised it I got a sight of the faces of those two men, and with an overwhelming flood of anguish, I seemed to catch a fresh and clearer revelation of the depth of the misery that had been caused to human beings by sin. It was more than I could bear. I clenched my hands and cried out in my soul, "O, God, how canst thou bear it? Thou mightest have prevented it, but didst not. Thou mightest even now change it, but Thou dost not. I do not see how Thou canst go on living, and endure it." I upbraided God. And I felt I was justified in doing so. Then suddenly God seemed to answer me. An inward voice said, in tones of infinite love and tenderness, "He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied." "Satisfied!" I cried in my heart, "Christ is to be satisfied! He will be able to look at the world's misery, and then at the travail through which He has passed because of it, and will be satisfied with the result; If I were Christ, nothing could satisfy me but that every human being should in the end be saved, and therefore I am sure that nothing less will satisfy Him." And with this a veil seemed to be withdrawn from before the plans of the universe, and I saw that it was true, as the Bible says, that "as in Adam all die -even so in Christ should all be made alive." As was the first, even so was the second. The "all" in one case could not in fairness mean less than the "all" in the other. I saw therefore that the remedy must necessarily be equal to the disease, the salvation must be as universal as the fall.

I saw all this that day on the tram-car on Market street, Philadelphia--not only thought it, or hoped it, or even believed it--but knew it. It was a Divine fact. And from that moment I have never had one questioning thought as to the final destiny of the human race. God is the Creator of every human being, therefore He is the Father of each one, and they are all His children; and Christ died for every one, and is declared to be "the propitiation not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). However great the ignorance therefore, or however grievous the sin, the promise of salvation is positive and without limitations. If it is true that "by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation," it is equally true that "by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." To limit the last "all men" is also to limit the first. The salvation is absolutely equal to the fall. There is to be a final "restitution of all things", when "at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." Every knee, every tongue-words could not be more embracing. The how and the when I could not see; but the one essential fact was all I needed-somewhere and somehow God was going to make every thing right for all the creatures He had created. My heart was at rest about it forever.

I hurried home to get hold of my Bible, to see if the magnificent fact I had discovered could possibly have been all this time in the Bible, and I had not have seen it; and the moment I entered the house, I did not wait to take off my bonnet, but rushed at once to the table where I always kept my Bible and Concordance ready for use, and began my search. Immediately the whole Book seemed to be illuminated. On every page the truth concerning the "times of restitution of all things" of which the Apostle Peter says "God Hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began," shone forth, and no room was left for questioning. I turned greedily from page to page of my Bible, fairly laughing aloud for joy at the blaze of light that illuminated it all. It became a new book. Another skin seemed to have been peeled off every text, and my Bible fairly shone with a new meaning. I do not say with a different meaning, for in no sense did the new meaning contradict the old, but a deeper meaning, the true meaning, hidden behind the outward form of words. The words did not need to be changed, they only needed to be understood; and now at last I began to understand them.

I remember just about this time, in the course of my daily reading in the Bible, coming to the Psalms, and I was amazed at the new light thrown upon their apparently most severe and blood-thirsty denunciations. I saw that, when rightly interpreted, not by the letter, but by the spirit, they were full of the assured and final triumph of good over evil, and were a magnificent vindication of the goodness and justice of God, who will not, and ought not, and cannot, rest until all His enemies and ours are put under His feet. I saw that the kingdom must be interior before it can be exterior, that it is a kingdom of ideas, and not one of brute force; that His rule is over hearts, not over places; that His victories must be inward before they can be outward; that He seeks to control spirits rather than bodies; that no triumph could satisfy Him but a triumph that gains the heart; that in short, where God really reigns, the surrender must be the interior surrender of the convicted free men, and not merely the outward surrender of the conquered slave. Milton says, "Who overcomes by force hath overcome but half his foe," and I saw that this was true.

Read in the light of these views, my whole soul thrilled with praise over the very words that had before caused me to thrill with horror. "Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered; let them also that hate Him flee before Him. As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melted before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God." God's wrath is against the sin not against the sinner, and when His enemies are scattered, ours are also. His sword is the righteousness that puts to death sin in order to save the sinner. The fire of His anger is the "refiner's fire", and He sits, not as the destroyer of the human soul, but as its purifier, to purge it as gold and silver are purged.

The full revelation can be read HERE

 

[Apologist]

Ok.
So...you are citing the Visitation at Fatima again...to which I already responded that no mention is made of Hell being eternal in the portion you cited.

Why would the children have said they "would have died out of terror if the Blessed Virgin wouldn't have promised them heaven"...if everyone is going there anyway?

You ignored the one from the Revelation of Christ to St. Faustina.

She said Jesus said "Woe to them who do not recognize this is the time of my visitation." Woe to them? How would it be "woe to them" if Jesus's "visitation" is endless, and everyone is going to be saved?

The new portion is a prayer of St. Bridget. I assume this is another portion of the Fatima documentation.

No. link to the stuff on St. Bridget

Our Lord made the following promises to anyone who recited the 15 St. Bridget Prayers for a whole year

I consider the 15 prayers, because our Lord gave them to St. Bridget, as of having sound theological doctrines behind them. Prayer 5 clearly implicates eternal damnation.

But...there is revelation on my side of the debate as well...and I will quote a portion of one such revelation below:

No mentions of apparitions. All of my sources had apparitions.