In this chapter, I would like to summarize the three different interpretative frameworks. To a degree, one might see this presented as an oversimplification. This isn’t however, meant to be a full-blown scholarly critique of each. One can find enough of this throughout the academic world. I want to present this summary in a way that is how I summed up all that I found. These are the key points I found within all of the data I sifted through in my research and analysis.
As I began this work, I really found it to be perfect for someone who loves data analysis. There was a lot of data sifting through the internet in order to understand the frameworks. Essentially, which data (the scriptures) were being used for upholding each, or on the other side, tearing each down?
I will write this chapter in more of a point form format. As I think it is a better way to structure the writing. In square brackets [] and italics are the thoughts I had on each point.
3.1 The Eternal Hell Framework
Point One: It certainly has usable scripture backing it up. Mostly focused on the judgement scriptures and certain statements from Jesus.
Point Two: It appears The King James Version (KJV) is historically a key driver of understanding this tradition in the English-speaking world. This is because it used the word hell to translate Sheol (שְׁאוֹל), Hades (ᾅδου) and Gehenna (γέεννα). However, modern versions have been removing the word hell from the Old Testament. In the New Testament, it is mixed. It seems to be kept as hell when it fits to the fate of the unrepentant. but otherwise becomes a transliteration of the Greek word when it applies to those saved. Research points to The Latin Vulgate having a far greater influence on the KJV translation than the Greek manuscripts. Of course, it was the Latin Vulgate translation which was used during the reign of the Papal Roman Empire. It certainly doesn’t originate from the historical Greek analysis.
Point Three: It requires 100% that the Greek words aiōn (αἰών) and aiōnios (αἰώνιος) mean “eternal, unending, forever, without end” etc.
[If by chance, these words don’t mean these things, then the entire eternal hell framework falls apart.]
Point Four: It requires the Hebrew words olam (עוֹלָם) and olamim (עוֹלָמִֽים) to mean “eternal, never ending, without end” etc. Which are the foundational Hebrew words which represent the true idea’s behind aiōn and aiōnios as translated into Greek by the seventy Judean elders making up the Greek Septuagint in 246 BC.
[Also here, if olam/olamim don’t mean eternal, etc., then the eternal hell framework falls apart.]
Point Five: It requires the belief that the soul is immortal. This being that the Greek word psuché (ψυχην) or Hebrew word nephesh (לְנֶפֶשׁ) has immortality and is in fact spiritual.
[The problem with this is there is no such declaration in the Bible. This understanding comes from Platonism and the Greek dualism, it is Greek philosophy. There is a future immortality only given to us at the first resurrection. Analyzing the Old and New Testament native words, we find the Bible is replete with statements the soul is mortal, natural and can die. Or in other terms, sleeps. Therefore, without the immortality of the soul, the eternal hell framework also falls apart.]
Point Six: It requires the doctrine of humanity’s 100% sovereign free will to explain why, in fact, Jesus would condemn those not accepting Him in their lifetime to end up in hell for all of eternity.
[Interestingly, diving deeper into the Old Testament reveals this to be quite the opposite. That the Lord is very sovereign over His creation. In our modern-day discussion, a problem arises to this framework if one is a Calvinist. Calvinists don’t accept man’s complete free will. If one is of Arminianism, one stands on full and unequivocal free will.
The disagreement between Calvinism and Arminianism is seriously a concern here. They both believe and hold to the eternal hell framework yet; many Christians don’t even realize they are of the Arminianism persuasion. I think of Psalms 103:19: “The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” and Proverbs 21:1: “The king’s heart is a waterway in the hand of the LORD; He directs it where He pleases.” There is also a powerful statement from King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:35 which flies in the face of full free will “All the peoples of the earth are counted as nothing, and He does as He pleases with the army of heaven and the peoples of the earth. There is no one who can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’”]
Point Seven: Who is doing the tormenting? I can’t say I have discovered teachings expounding on this. I should state here that it seems in the minds of most Christians, many believe that it is the Adversary/Slanderer (the Satan) and his demons that will be the tormenters of those in hell.
[This seems to come from mere dogma more than anything else as Revelation 20:10 clearly says the Adversary (the Satan) himself goes into the lake of fire. So, the question arises, are Father God and Lord Jesus with their messengers/angels doing the tormenting directly? Something seriously to consider. It certainly is a strange thought when we say “God is Love” isn’t it?]
Point Eight: It demands that when every knee bows, and every tongue confess Jesus as Lord. That all who find themselves unrepentant will do this in hostility to Jesus and anger and rage to the Father. Is this true?
[The bible clearly doesn’t actually declare this. It actually claims this is a good thing and it will be glorious and praiseworthy to the Father for every knee to bow. In fact, this argument then defeats point six and the free will doctrine, as it then seems every knee is being forced to bend and worship God. If this was done from a forced surrender, then in fact, it kind of nullifies man having free will. As whom would really bend their knee by their own free will in anger and hostility. We know the answer, nobody! At some point, it means, man’s free will be abolished if the knee bows in anything but glorious love, honor, and humble reverence.]
Point Nine: It ignores, or at least doesn’t consider, deeper understanding of the laws that the Lord instituted for the universe on just and righteous judgment of sin-crimes and sin-debts.
[Interestingly, this framework seems to completely gloss over understanding how the law of redemption functions. The law which Jesus obeyed and is obeying in order to redeem and reconcile the cosmos. I have really struggled to find any historic references of the fathers of the Greek or Latin church, speaking about this key element.]
Point Ten: It ignores, or at least doesn’t consider, the great promises in the Old Testament still open for all of humanity and the nations.
Point Eleven: It doesn’t seem to consider the plethora of mercy and grace the Lord had in His dealings with the Israelites. Then how this carries forward into His future dealings and promises to the nations.
Point Twelve: It seems to overlook the clearly visible universalism of the Pauline epistles. What I have found seems to point to a consensus among theologians’ hell is uniquely missing in Paul’s epistles.
[I have always found this an interesting statement from Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:5, “to deliver up such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord Jesus.” Maybe in the end, the whole point of the Adversary (the Satan) is for revealing in us, the sinfulness of our flesh in order that Jesus may destroy our flesh, and not the sinner.]
Point Thirteen: There seems to be an explaining away of scriptures which clearly points to restoration and reconciliation of all things. This is looking often at the Greek word pas (πᾶς); or pasa (πᾶσα); or pan (πᾶν) which means ALL, to actually mean some, wherever it suits.
[If we consider the Greek LXX, it also seems clear that pas, pasa, pan means what they are pointing to, “all.” Furthermore, maybe when we focus only on the New Testament, we could get away with this, but the Old Testament is also full of declarations of restoration. Especially in the Psalms.]
Point Fourteen: It seems this doctrinal framework really overlooks the Deuteronomy 32, and Psalm 82 world view. This is that the work of the cross was not only about saving humanity. It is a far grander plan it is about the entire reconciliation and restoration of the cosmos.
[The apostle Paul clearly states in Ephesians 6:12 (ESV), “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” So do all wicked entities in the heavens end up in the lake of fire, being tormented and tortured forever? If so, are Jesus and the messengers along with you and I as king-priest-saints doing the torment of all? As to whom else would there be to execute this work? It is a question I don’t think many of us want to consider.]
Point Fifteen: In following on point five and the need for the soul to be immortal. The hell framework needs the soul to go somewhere immediately at death. This leads to a dangerous precedence. Judgment being cast immediately at death. Either you go to heaven or hell. Yet, there is a strong declaration in Revelations chapter 20 that it is only at the second resurrection, the Great White Throne judgment that the king-priest-saints will judge all humans and heavenly beings along with King Jesus.
[We all know that in our earthly courts, one is innocent until proven guilty. If we believe this to be a fair way to handle our earthly courts today, how can we judge it fair that anyone be judged for their deeds before the accounted time.]
Point Sixteen: Following on point fifteen this framework annuls any need for a Great White Throne judgment. At death, the judgment has taken place with only one of two potential outcomes. Did one accept Jesus: Yes or No!
[There really is no need to judge anything further in the universe. The king-priest-saints certainly do not need to take part in judging humanity or the wicked in the heavenly places. The Bible only declares one great judgment exists. Further, I believe we can all agree, if we say I will judge you based on your deeds, it means I need to go through your history, looking at the good, the bad and the ugly of your life. It would seem clear; some deeds will be of distinct character than others. It also would mean; one-persons full account could look quite different from another person’s full account.]
Point Seventeen: Following further on point fifteen and sixteen, it seems this framework has become unpalatable to bear. Whether it be Jesus or Father God leading the charge, the conception of their creation being tormented and tortured for all of eternity, has developed into a re-interpretation of this hell being “only eternal separation” from God. Which is just as horrible, but without torture by fire being involved.
[Time itself is an enemy of this doctrinal framework. Our hearts can’t bear the weight of what is being preached. Looking at history from the hardness of Augustine and Tertullian to a splitting of Calvinism and Arminianism to even now Arminianism in many denominations simply proclaiming it a separation and not torment or torture, too often in the twenty-first century it is just not being spoken of. It seems clear, this is affecting us all more greatly than we might like to acknowledge.]
Point Eighteen: Last, discussions which stand against the eternal hell framework point to a great deal of evidence that much of this doctrine has its origins with Augustine of Hippo and Tertullian of Carthage and the Latin church. They are seen as the fathers of this teaching and doctrinal framework. As the Latin church dominated, we see the period following where the church began its decent into carnal bickering and infighting. It is the Latin church in Carthage that ultimately took their doctrines to Rome and became the great despotic Papal Roman Empire.
[We are all fallible humans until Christ transforms us into incorruptible beings. I believe we can learn a great deal from all people, of any creed or background of Christianity. I believe the fathers of the Latin church we can learn a lot from individually, but should we just accept the things of their lives and their rulership of Papal Rome which clearly caused despotic and evil fruit throughout the Christian era.
Of course, I don’t believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but this then takes analysis and a humble regard to really reflect on this. Overall, we see as well, the outcomes of the fruit differ from the Latin Papal Roman church, compared to at least the first ~450 years of the Greek speaking churches. Though clearly, they too have their failures. The huge difference though I see, they all knew Greek as their native language and were closer to the texts than those of Carthage and the Latin translations.]
This is my summary of the findings I have discovered surrounding the eternal hell interpretative framework and some of the thoughts I had about each one along the way. I see quite a number of shaky points. Points that if you were to remove them simply from the conversation as arguable points, like three, four and five, then I am not sure there is much substance to stand on. I will elaborate on this in a later section. Finally, point seven and fourteen bring up interesting questions. Are we the future king-priest-saints the ones who are carrying out this torment and torture? If all end up in the lake of fire, even the Adversary (the Satan) and his messengers, then who seriously is doing the torturing? Or is it simply about sitting in darkness in a prison like setting for all of eternity? The door locked, the key thrown away and forever forgotten about?
3.2 Annihilationism (Conditional Immortality) Framework
Point One: It has usable scriptures backing it up. Upholds scriptures pointing to judgment and Jesus’ words on judgment.
Point Two: Uses much scripture as it is written when referenced together with “destruction plus the soul/psuché/nephesh” across the Old Testament and New Testament.
Point Three: It seems mixed as to if it requires the Greek words aiōn (αἰών) and aiōnios (αἰώνιος) to mean eternal and never ending. It doesn’t seem as relevant. It doesn’t demand it to mean eonian/age-lasting. Though, it is a better fit if they mean eternal. As then, eternal destruction is fine as there is no suffering. The rest of those that accept Christ go into eternal life. Age-lasting destruction could be okay, with it ending up in the complete obliteration of the human being.
Point Four: It doesn’t need the soul to be immortal, as in the end it is destroyed. It can’t be immortal and indestructible if it is to be destroyed and annihilated. I haven’t seen a conclusion that demands the soul be immortal under this interpretative framework.
Point Five: It brings a level of understanding, of judgment for sins. However, misses the timeframe of sin-debt judgments found in the laws of Christ. It seems to overlook the greater understanding of the Lord’s level of justice as per how He governs the seen and unseen realms.
Point Six: It ignores or at least doesn’t seem to consider the greater promises in the Old Testament open still to all of humanity and the nations.
Point Seven: It seems to overlook the universalism of the Pauline epistles. Except the ones that point to destruction like 1 Corinthians 5:5 which actually help to uphold the framework.
Point Eight: It seems to have very weak answers to all the scriptures that point to the salvation, reconciliation, and restoration of all things. Like for example 1 Timothy 4:10: “To this end we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”
Point Nine: Interestingly under this framework, all that I have found seems to point to the Great White Throne as being the only place of judgment. There is no intermediary state of either Heaven or hell until the time of great judgment. Though, this can as well depend on the internal framework within annihilationism as there could be a time of punishment and then annihilation. Or immediate annihilation.
Point Ten: Similarly, to point fourteen and sixteen of the eternal hell framework but with one twist. If we are the ones judging the world, is it then as well us who will be annihilating all humanity and the wicked celestial beings with Jesus and His messengers? Further, how does the judgment according to ones deeds or works fit into the annihilation of them? Are there different levels of annihilation depending on your accounted for deeds? Maybe it is about the length of time it takes to be annihilated?
[This one for me becomes quite unclear, because a judgment of works or deeds means some level of valuation and then a timeframe. So maybe there is torment and torture for a given time, and then later, finally cast into the crematorium to be annihilated. I guess we are the ones doing this as the Adversary and his messengers will also be annihilated so it won’t be them doing it right?]
These were my findings and thoughts as I reviewed the framework of annihilationism.
Along the way, I was curious as to if there was any kind of “father of annihilationism,” as we see in the other two frameworks. Given this has always been the minority view, one doesn’t read too much about who actually was a kind of potential founder. It seems if anyone could be deemed as the father of this, we could point to Arnobius of Sicca (~ AD 330). He was the first to really defend the framework.
What is interesting for this framework is the imagery that came to my mind when reviewing it. I pictured all of us the king-priest-saints along with Lord Jesus and the angelic beings standing in front of the lake of fire. We were throwing the wicked into it with all being annihilated once they entered the fire. The lake of fire being a kind of crematorium for the seen and unseen realms. It is a horrifying thought to be throwing my grandma or cousin into that fire. Though, it still strikes me as more just than when I pictured the same thought and me taking part in the torment and torture of the eternal hell framework.
Therefore, after having compared eternal hell verses annihilationism, I can say absolutely I found this more palpable. The arguments are also far more balanced than the hell framework. I certainly see though a number of weak legs in which it can fully collapse on. What I found was if I was to accept this as the end game, there are actually a whole new layer of complex questions which pop up. I was never fully left feeling at peace and satisfied with what was being put forth under this framework. I have great respect for all those that hold to this interpretational framework, but after really diving into it. I find it simply can’t hold water to the universal restoration framework.
3.3 Universal Restoration (Restoration of All Things) Framework
Before I review the key elements found within the universal restoration framework. I would like to clarify there is really no single overarching view of universalism. Today there are different views within universalism. Just like we see with Calvinism and Arminianism. Some of these flavors even I have to say, are outright horrendous. I believe it is imperative that we can declare there is a logical time of judgment in the future. The cross doesn’t have someone being saved “in their sins” but “from their sins.” Nobody is saved except through the power of the cross.
Therefore, my focus is really on the universalism of the early Greek church fathers. That which was believed for the first 450 years of the church. Along with the prominent names from the late seventeenth-and eighteenth centuries and some of the prominent writers of our own time.
It includes people such as Origin of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Didymus of Alexandria, Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. It includes names such as Lewis Carroll, Thomas Allin, Hosea Ballou, John Wesley Hanson D.D., and Hannah Whitall Smith. People such as Sadhu Sundar Singh, Hans Christian Andersen, Florence Nightingale, Andrew Jukes, J.W. Hansen D.D., Karl Barth, and Thomas B. Thayer. Then we have Bible translators such as A.E. Knoch (the CLV), Robert Young (the YLT), J.B. Rotherham (the EBR) and E. W. Bullinger of the Companion Study Bible.
In the twenty-first century, we have wonderful people such as Rev Dr. Robin A. Parry, Dr. Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, one of the greatest scholars on Patristics today. We have Dr. Thomas Talbott: contributor to the Oxford Handbook of Eschatology. We have Keith Giles, Dr. Stephen E. Jones, Dr. Peter Hiett, and Dr. James Bruggeman. Finally, we have the author and Bible translator, Dr. David Bentley Hart of The New Testament: A Translation, all to name just a few.
Within the writings of these authors, we find there is a clear distinction between the balance of God’s sovereignty and our own responsibility (authority). We find a clear understanding that there will be a time of judgment. Everyone will be judged according to their deeds. When this happens, it will lead to a time of chastisement and correction for the sinner. Yet will never be torture.
I have found it certainly seems that at least most of the early Greek church fathers fully believed the fire of punishment to be literal. I would disagree with this, as fire in the Bible never represents torture or torment, but refinement, purity, and holiness. Finally, many believed that there would be a time of great weeping and gnashing of teeth. This I fully agree with, however, I also see it another way, and I elaborate on this further in chapter 11.
From chapter 8 onwards, we will learn that, in fact, the law never sanctions proper punishment and torture as we imagine it today in our minds. I believe this will help us to fully grasp the true level of justice in which Lord Jesus rules and reigns. Now on to my summary of my findings of universal restoration.
Point One: It has usable scriptures backing it all up. It includes all the scriptures on judgment, as well as all the scriptures on salvation, reconciliation, and restoration. It presents a harmonious balance between them all.
[I have found all the contradictions that pop up under the hell and annihilation frameworks are resolved. There are no conflicts of interest, no explaining away of some scriptures in order to uphold others.]
Point Two: It seeks to restore our understanding of the original Greek, stepping away from the 1,500 years of corruption and despotism of the Latin church under Papal Rome. It seeks to understand (more in the twenty-first century) the Hebrew concepts behind various Greek words. Rather than the Greek concepts.
[I have found it rejects the rotten fruit of Papal Rome and all that was introduced by Augustine of Hippo and Tertullian of Carthage and those who came after them. Even John Calvin wanted to torture and kill those who stood against him. Is that fruit we wish to replicate?]
Point Three: This framework requires and demands that the Greek word aiōnios (αἰώνιος) mean “age-lasting, age-during, eonian, pertaining to time” like its noun aiōn (αἰών). It requires the Hebrew words olam (עוֹלָם) and olamim (עוֹלָמִֽים) to in fact define what the Greek words should represent. It demands these should be consistently translated. Unlike in the ESV and NASB that use upwards of 15 different words just for aiōn and aiōnios. It is also shown through various Bible translations we can consistently translate them across the entire Old and New Testament.
Point Four: It demands and refutes that the soul/psuché/nephesh is immortal or has any immortality before the first resurrection. Our soul is, in fact, very mortal and carnal and dies (sleeps).
[No scripture declares that we as living souls have immortality until after the first resurrection. Only God has immortality and incorruptibility, as found in 1 Timothy 6:15-16. Scores and scores of scripture point to us as living souls being able to die. We should note that many of the Greek church fathers believed and accept this part of Platonism. Though they upheld the universal restoration, they unfortunately believed in the soul’s pre-existence and immortality.1[1] Ramelli, Dr. Ilaria L. E. “Chapter 3: Origin of Alexandria,” in A Larger Hope? Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich. (Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers, Oct 6, 2019). Pg 63. Kindle In the twenty-first century, I believe we can say we should see more clearly the pre-existence and immortal soul teaching comes from Platonism and Greek philosophies. It is not a Biblical concept nor a Hebrew one.]
Point Five: If we consider the concept of “free will” verses “sovereignty of God,” this framework finds rather a balance in it. This being on the lower level, the responsibility and authority given to humanity. In contrast to the higher level, that being the sovereignty of God. Which is God’s responsibility and authority over us as our creator. We can never be judged beyond the responsibility and authority we have been given. This would be unjust. The concept of sovereign free will originates from Jacobus Arminius (AD 1560–1609). If it weren’t for Arminius, I can imagine someone else would have come up with it, as it is clear. Calvin’s view of God’s sovereignty was unpalpable.
[It can often seem our decisions win out over God’s for our lives and for the world. Yet this is only for a time and season. The fact is, the overall plan of God and Jesus still carries on. If it were really up to the free will of our sinful flesh, no person would ever come to salvation. As the flesh certainly doesn’t want to be destroyed by Gods refining fire.
The flesh will avoid as much as possible to be put to death. The Old Testament is rife with scripture backing up this fact, the Lord is completely sovereign over His creation. Their will, will be done, not ours. We are not sovereign over ourselves. “We are the clay, shall the clay say to the potter, why have you created me this way? (Isaiah 45:9, Romans 9:20-22)” God is the chess master able to see every move of his opponent well in advance. He prepares the way, we all end up at Him, in due course and time. We will all as well be held accountable to our life choices and the responsibility He has given us.]
Point Six: It considers all the great promises for humanity and the nations in the Old Testament.
Point Seven: It reveals that when every knee bows, and every tongue confess Jesus as Lord. That it will be to the glory and praise of the Father. That all of creation will recognize Him and His goodness, and it will be pleasing for all to bow their knee. And this means not only humans, but all the celestial beings. It will all be “to the glory of the Father.”
[Try reading in order 1 Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, and Romans 10:9. Is it even possible someone can actually even declare Jesus as Lord without the Father and Holy Spirit leading us to such a declaration. It is impossible, no human can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit leading them to declare it. Other references are Isaiah 45:23, linked with Romans 14:11.]
Point Eight: It is fully in line with the mercy and grace of the Lord in his dealings with the Israelites. This then follows in later influences for the future dealing with all the nations and His creation.
Point Nine: It is fully in line with all the Pauline epistles, and it is Paul’s writing, which many agree establishes even such a framework of interpretation.
Point Ten: It doesn’t demand picking when the Greek word pas (πᾶς); or pasa (πᾶσα); or pan (πᾶν) means “all.” It means “all,” in every case. Therefore, there is no contradictions with 1 Corinthians 15:22-23a “for even as in Adam all (πάντες / pantes) die, so also in Christ all (πάντες / pantes) will be made alive, and each in his proper order: (LSV)” All in the first instance is the same in the second instance. All will come, just in their own proper order.
Point Eleven: Last but certainly not least, I have found within the historic writings of universalism scant discussion on what the laws of God have to say about how, punishment or chastisement are to be managed. With everything I have read from the seventeenth and twenty-first century researchers, this topic seems overlooked. It may exist, but I haven’t seen it. There are some today, however, bringing it into the conversation.
[It seems that, in the twenty-first century, Father God and Christ Jesus are beginning to re-introduce the understanding and importance of the Kingdom laws. Essentially, it goes like this that we need to look at the “spirit of the law” not the letter alone. That the laws are not done away with because not all has been fulfilled yet. These laws form the character of Father God and Lord Jesus in governing the entire cosmos, not just something given to ancient Israel. It says we need to look at the laws with “new covenant eyes” not through the lens of the old covenant. I will expound on this further as we progress.]
These are my key findings on the universal restoration interpretative framework.
What I see is very much in line with the findings of Dr. Thomas Talbott in his book, The Inescapable Love of God. Western Christianity has been dominated by teaching one interpretative framework. It would benefit all of Christianity if, in fact, we had a more balanced view of the three frameworks. Rather than outright declaring the other two to be false. There really are legitimate arguments for each. Yet as far as I have found, only one truly brings harmony through all the scriptures.
What stands out to me the most when discussing this topic with anybody is the following. I always receive the question: “Well then, why accept Jesus at all, if all will be saved?” It is a meaningful question; I will come to answering this later in this study in chapter 11. However, I would like to leave you with an additional thought as we proceed. This is: Jesus never said He came to save us from hell. (be it Hades, Gehenna or Tartarus or the Lake of Fire). He states clearly, He came to save us from our sins and to defeat death, Hades (hell) and the grave.
3.4 Conclusions
Over this chapter, we have now reviewed all of my findings and thoughts regarding the three interpretative frameworks. What I think we discover the most out of this is—if we can honestly face it—the body of Christ certainly doesn’t have a perfect consensus on this topic. They didn’t have it in the second century, and it is quite clear, we also don’t have it in the twenty-first century.
I really believe all of us have a solid heart for the unrepentant. I believe we all want to get it right and spread the correct message to the world. However, considering over the course of the Papal Roman Empire we see “some extremely rotten fruit.” Shouldn’t it be time to re-evaluate our understanding of the character of Father God and our King Jesus by some healthier fruit?
The protest came in AD 1517 because of this rotten fruit. Protestantism has rejected so much from the Papal Roman days; how come we have never considered rejecting the rottenness of the eternal hell framework as well?
I find it interesting how many denominations claim they have the perfect truth and many of the others are false. Going so far to even claim that if we don’t accept their truth, then in fact those other Christians will end up in hell … eternally. This I find deeply disturbing. Jesus clearly declared:
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. (Matthew 7:16-18)
Our modern-day patristic scholars have been revealing the fruit of the early Greek church was far healthier than the fruit coming from the Latin church. What we find is during the first 450 years, there were actually six principal schools of systematic theology. These six schools were as follows:
One, and only one, was decidedly and earnestly in favor of the doctrine of future eternal punishment.
One was in favor of annihilation of the wicked.
- Two were in favor of the doctrine of universal restoration on the principles of Origin of Alexandria.
Two were in favor of universal restoration on the principles of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Of these six schools, it was only the school of Carthage in North Africa, which favored eternal punishment. It is also the school which educated Augustine of Hippo and Tertullian of Carthage. This was the only school that had its foundation in Latin, rather than Greek/Eastern origin. The Latin school is the one that finally ended up dominating as Papal Rome and spinning the Western world into the dark ages. All the others were of Greek/Eastern origin and were thriving as they had the native tongue of the New Testament.
Even though all of this chapter is in my own words and the observations I have found along the way, I trust one can see that there was a deep and thorough review and analysis of all three frameworks in existence then and now.