Elhanan

It all depends on which meaning of aionas (eons or aion) one chooses to use, but there is only one true meaning. The word eons, aion and aionas is found in the word study of G165. The simplest meaning is: for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternitythe worlds, universeperiod of time, ageTo dig even deeper, we find the following, from the Complete Word Study Dictionary for Greek Age, referring to an age or time in contrast to kosmos (2889), referring to people or space. Denotes duration or continuance of time, but with great variety. (1) Age, an indefinitely long period of time or lapse of time, perpetuity, ever, forever, eternity. ...(A) Spoken of times future in the following phrases ......(1) Eis ton aiona (eis [1591] into, unto; ton [3588] the; aion [165] age) forever, without end, to the remotest time; spoken of Christ; spoken of the blessedness of the righteous; of punishment of the wicked (Jude 1:13). ......(2) The phrase eis tous aionas, unto the ages, meaning ever, forever, to all eternity, spoken of God; of Christ. ......(3) The phrase eis tous aionas ton aionon, unto the ages of the ages being an intensive form meaning forever (2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 13:21; 1 Peter 4:11; Revelation 1:6, 18; 4:9, 19; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5). (2) Spoken of times past (which is not what 20:10 is speaking about, so I will not give the information for this meaning) Since Revelation 20:10 is "eis tous sionas ton aionon", the meaning would be of 1A3 above. G165 aionas, meaning age of the ages being an intensive form of forever and G166: aionios, meaning eternal, it is clear that 20:10 is speaking of forever eternal. I hope this is clear enough. OneLight - While referring to a lexicon for the meaning of a word in beginning a word study is a start; it is by no means the end. As my reply to ninhao indicated, a word can have a range of meanings which may be determined by its context. A lexicon is only a tool to help the reader determine how a particular word has been translated. It does not determine for us whether the translators were accurate in translating the original language - that job is left to you and me (if we wish to undertake such an endeavor). But even a casual glance of the meaning of G165 presents a peculiar problem in that we are presented with a word that has completely opposite meanings. How can aion possibly mean both an "eternity" and also a "period of time?" It is a contradiction of terms. Also, in citing Rev 20:10 one interesting question or aspect of the verse is that if eternity in the lake of fire is the final destiny of the Devil, the beast and the false prophet, does this by necessity imply that the unsaved incur the same limitless penalty? To argue in the affirmative is to make an argument from silence which is a weakened position to begin with. I submit that more study is required rather than citing a single verse to prove the meaning of a word. I don't have the time now but will attempt to elaborate more in a future post.

I have answered why I interpret aionios using the context, and intention, of Jesus' words in Matthew 25:46. Jesus used the same word to describe the fate of the righteous and the wicked; and we know, without doubt, the righteous will live forever ( eternal life ). I'm confused why you're attempting to use etymology of the word to change this plain verse. OneLight gave a brief analysis of aionios in my position isn't promoting eternal torment as per my Whether torment is eternal or the wicked are separated from God eternally I'm not convinced; but it's clear the consequences of non belief are eternal. The below passage indicates destruction of the wicked juxtaposed against eternal life ( aionios ) for the righteous . Again we see a comparison of 2 eternal positions. ( destruction vs eternal life ) Mat 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. (14) But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. My questions stand awaiting your reply ( using etymology of aionios if you choose ) Do you accept aionios in Matthew 25:46 when referring to the righteous means eternal ? If so; why don’t you accept aionios, in the same sentence, when referring to the wicked means eternal ? At this stage I can only assume you believe Jesus used the same word but meant 2 different things in Matthew 25:46. As aside I am curious as to how you explain Universalism to non believers Elhanan. Do you tell them they will receive harsh punishment if they don't repent and believe the Gospel but will gain eternal life regardless ? Based on your answer, I don't think you even understand what a word study or what investigating the etymology of a word involves. Etymology involves finding out the history and derivation of a word in order to find out its true meaning. In terms of words in scripture, (in this case aionios/aionion) it involves examining all of those passages where it occurs in the NT to determine its contextual usage as well as determining whether any equivalent Hebrew words exist in the OT to further help determine its meaning. In addition, extra-biblical sources such as other ancient secular writings can be examined to determine the word usage. What you have done instead is to take a single scripture verse and based on that single verse, have predetermined that aionion means eternal. While I didn't expect you to do a full blown word study, what you have done is underwhelming to say the least. It is like saying the English word "bill" means an "invoice" while ignoring other meanings of the word determined by its context such as a duck's bill, the bill of a cap, a dollar bill, his name is Bill. That is not acceptable and makes for poor hermeneutics. If you read my previous posts you would know that I believe in the lake of fire where all of the unsaved end up. There they will receive punishment or chastisement according to God's righteous judgment but not for an eternity but instead for an age of time so that they may repent in order that God will one day reconcile all to himself. The choice for the unbeliever is to repent and trust/obey in Christ in this life or be forced to enter the lake of fire in the next.

Since teeth are being pulled present the etymology of aionios it is part of your argument. My argument is based upon the intention of Jesus use of the word. In the same post please answer these questions. Do you accept aionios in Matthew 25:46 when referring to the righteous means eternal ?If so; why don’t you accept aionios, in the same sentence, when referring to the wicked means eternal ?You seem to be avoiding this. Strike 3 ninhao! Since for some bewildering reason you have chosen to avoid answering my straightforward question that I first posed to you, thus I will respond in kind and not answer yours. ETs (eternal tormentors) are fond of citing Matt 25:46 as their primary proof-text in support of eternal punishment claiming that the parallel construction of its two clauses necessitates such a view. However such is not the case and a range of explantions have been offered by commentators. If someone else wishes me to answer the question I will gladly do so provided that they are willing to engage in dialogue and extend me the same courtesy by answering my questions.

Since Jesus used anionios to describe the fate of the righteous I can safely assume it means eternal, or never ending, in Matthew 25:46. Do you agree ? I think you are stalling because it is a difficult question for your position and one I have never heard a reasonable explanation for from a Universalist. My goodness...this is like pulling teeth. I don't know why you avoid my simple question like the plague which is very unfortunate since the etymological root of the adjective aionion/aionios directly bears upon the questions you are asking. If you did perhaps you might discover for yourself the reasonable explanation you were looking for.

The elect Jews are all believing Jews. After the fullness of the Gentiles, many more Jews will believe adding to the fold. We already know "all Israel"does not mean every Jew from Romans 9:6-8. The “mystery” is the establishment of the Church uniting Jew and Gentile as one Body in Christ. We remain in disagreement as you qualify all as some; whereas I believe all means all. Eph 3:4-6 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) (5) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; (6) That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: This mystery has no bearing on “all Israel” and the promise to Israel to not forsake them corporately is effectual. Yes, upon reading the context again I do agree with you that the mystery pertains to the calling of the gentiles as well as the Jews. I believe I did explain let me re post. Mat 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. Mat 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Gal 6:7-8 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. (8) Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. In Matthew 25:46 Jesus used eternal (aiōnios ) to describe the fate of both the wicked and the righteous. You agree that the righteous will inherit eternal life but baulk at the same word used to describe the destruction/punishment for the wicked. I’ll ask you 2 questions so we have understanding. Do you accept aionios in Matthew 25:46 when referring to the righteous means eternal ? If so; why don’t you accept aionios, in the same sentence, when referring to the wicked means eternal ? Let me clarify. I am asking you to explain the etymology of the word aionion and consequently why you translate it as eternal. You have not done this but instead refer me to the grammatical construction of Matt 25:46. If you could please respond to my question first since this is now my 3rd request and I will gladly respond in kind to your questions.

No apolology from you needed Kwik as I find your posts to filled with grace and not attempting to offend anyone.

If you think I have wrested the truth from Scripture go ahead and make your case through Scripture instead of painting with broad strokes of generalizations and guilt by association.

This is becoming concerning. Romans 9 and Romans 11 are in complete agreement that only the faithful among Israel will be saved. Rom 11:22-23 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. (23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. God has mercy on everyone but only the faithful ( believers ) will be saved ( graffed in again ). We can see the portion of Israel who will repent and believe prophesied by Zechariah. ( possibly during the tribulation ) Zec 13:8-9 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. (9) And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God. Elhanan said: In Romans 9-11 Paul draws a sharp distinction between the believing Jews who are saved (the elect) and the unbelieving Jews who are not saved. These unbelieving Jews are disobedient and moreover God himself has hardened their hearts (Rom 11:8-10) in order that the gentiles would be saved. Once the fullness of the gentiles comes in (Rom 11:25) the period of harding will end and then "all Israel will be saved" (11:26). That is why Paul refers to this as a "mystery" - that God is able to save all of Israel. God is faithul to his covenant people as his gifts and calling to Israel are irrevocable (11:29). Mat 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. Mat 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Gal 6:7-8 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. (8) Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. In Matthew 25:46 Jesus used eternal (aiōnios ) to describe the fate of both the wicked and the righteous. You agree that the righteous will inherit eternal life but baulk at the same word used to describe the destruction/punishment for the wicked. I do consider it is possible eternal punishment may imply separation from God eternally ie. destruction. ( this still is never ending ) Destruction is permanent. Elhanan said: Again, please explain to me why you must translate aionion as eternal? (PS. Elhanan it would be good if you will take Onelight’s offer to pm him for help with the coding. You may also copy/paste into a Word document and edit accordingly if you prefer ) Thank you for the reminder - I apologize for having screwed this one up.

I don't know who you are referring to as I don't watch preachers on TV or the internet. As for "universalism," I find that the great majority of Christians dismiss it out-of-hand because it is at odds with what they have always been taught and don't bother to study the subject further in order to determine for themselves the veracity of what they have been taught. The idea that God will eventually reconcile all to himself was not a remote or foreign idea in the early church as it is today.Quoting from Schaff-Herzog's Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1908,vol.12,p.96) "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibus were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked." As for your taking your licks comment, I don't know about you, but I would not want to take even a single lick in the lake of fire if I could avoid it as I would much rather choose Christ in this life.

We know not every Israelite will be saved as per Roman’s 9. “All Israel” is representing the faithful part. Rom 9:6-8 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. (7) Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." (8) In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. The unfaithful are destroyed. If the book of Romans ended at Chapter 9, you might have a point but Paul goes on to state in chapt 11 that the mystery is that all of Israel including the disobedient will eventually be saved once the fullness of the gentiles is brought in. I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is[f] my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”[g] 28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Heb 10:36-39 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. (37) For, "In just a little while, he who is coming will come and will not delay." (38) And, "But my righteous one will live by faith. And I take no pleasure in the one who shrinks back." (39) But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved. The two options Jesus has presented are eternal life or eternal destruction. Mat 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. Mat 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Gal 6:7-8 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. (8) Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Notice the possible states in the next life. 1. Destruction 2. Eternal life. No where in the bible is the option of redemption through the LOF presented. Can you explain why you feel compelled to translate aionion as "eternal"?

Bowing knee also infers submission from enemies. Let's look to the Isaiah verses from where this comes. Isa 45:22-25 "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (23) By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. (24) They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are deliverance and strength.'" All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame. (25) But all the descendants of Israel will find deliverance in the LORD and will make their boast in him. The enemies of God will be put to shame and submit as defeated and the subjects of God will willingly give servitude. Not sure if I understand your point but yes I agree bowing the knee infers submission or yielding one's will to God. Does shame occur in this lifetime or when in the lake of fire - both are plausible. ALL the descendants of Israel will find deliverance. God will reconcile his enemies as well as his chosen people to himself. Jesus has provided the reconciliation of all by His sacrifice but if you continue onto verse 23 you will notice there is a provision required so that this reconciliation of man will save him. This reconciliation only saves those who are in the faith. Col 1:19-23 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, (20) and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (21) Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. (22) But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-- (23) if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. Paul is directing his comments to the brethren calling them to persevere in the faith. My contention is if we do not freely obey Christ in this life than we will have to give account and come to obedience to Christ in the next life which for the disobedient is in the lake of fire.

But the problem is that there will be people in this life who will rationalize that there is no need to accept Jesus, that they can go on living in sin and heck, anyone can endure just about anything if they know there is light at the end of the tunnel. There are people who love their sin so much that they can rationalize away any need to accept Jesus. You simply one more enabler for sin. You are one more obstacle to the spreading of the true Gospel. Then they will have to spend time in the lake of fire won't they? Your argument is nonsense. Furthermore, you are presenting another means of salvation apart from the Gospel. You are presenting hell as a redemptive place and the Bible NEVER presents hell that way. It is 100% of the time, a place of eternal judgment from which there is no espape and in which there is no hope. You are presenting a false gospel that cirumvents the need for the blood of Jesus, for the cross of Jesus which was central to the message that Paul preached. Paul never preached salvation from hell or in hell. Rather than accuse me all the time, it would be more constructive if would provide scriptural support for your view. I find your argument to be weak without it. Salvation is only available through belief and obedience to Christ whose blood is the only sufficient propitiation for our sins. Just when that belief and obedience occurs is the subject of this debate. The very fact that your entire platform is based on cherry-picking isolated verses and ignoring basic rules of literary analysis in the process only highlights how false your teachings are. Universalism is not biblical Christianity. I find it quite ironic that I am the one at least providing scriptural backing for my view as opposed to you who make generalized statements without any scriptural context at all. All you do is give your opinions and I suggest you study some early church history before claiming that universalism has no basis in fact.

No, he is not. He is talking to the reader. That is why it is in the present tenses. I have studied the origional langauages, and frankly you know just enough about them to be dangerous. Yes he is talking to the reader and explaining to the reader what he is seeing as it is occurring in real time. The saints are already in the New Jerusalem and have already washed their robes. Apparently you are unable to distinguish the difference. I am by no means an expert but since you see fit to pronounce judgment on me why don't you go ahead and parse Rev 22:8 and tell me what you come up with? I was not referring to the gates of the New Jerusalem. I was using "gates" metaphorically to reference the fact that the offer of eternal life is not an eternal offer. There is apoint where man will simply run out of time. For most of us, we run out of time when we die. Salvation must be obtained in THIS life. So go ahead and support your claim - not just state it. My interpretation is based on what the text actually says. The New Heavens and New Earth are inhabited by those who died in Christ. They are the only people who will enter into that eternal day. The gift is greater in magnitude than the trespass, but being greater doesn't mean that everyone will be saved. The gift has to be receieved and can only be recieved today. When you die, it's over. There is no hope, because you have made your decision to reject Jesus. Again, you are fond of drawing conclusions but short on evidence. The text does actually say that ALL will be saved but you simply refuse to believe it as you would prefer to qualify God's word by substituting the word "some." Rom 5:17-18 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. According to your view the trespass is greater than the gift. According to your belief, all died in Adam but only some are made alive in Christ. According to your view the power in Adam's sin to condemn is greater than Jesus' blood to save. I find that directly contrary to this passage. Nope. I am reading what the text says. I am not filtering it through some desire to see people go to hell forever. Your postion is not bias-driven, it is agenda-driven. I don't have an agenda here. I am simply relating what the text says. If that's what you believe - suit yourself. Nope. that is not true. What you don't seem to understand is that there are places in the text where John is describing a vision and other places that serve as commentary based on what he has seen. The Spirit and the Bride say come is an invitation to the reader, not an invitation to a future audience. There is a sense in which John is looking directly at the reader and issuing the invitation. Context has nothing to do with linguistics here and frankly, your misandlilng and complete avoidance of context in so many places really shows that you know precious little about what context means and how it is applied. It is no wonder that you got sucked into heresy. Poor hermeneutics always leads to really bad theology as you so aptly continude to demonstrate. Too bad you are so careless in reading and quoting the text. John is not issuing the invitation; the Spirit and the bride are. John is describing what he is seeing. You are attempting to make it much more complicated than it actually is in order to force your view upon the text. While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and parse Rev 22:17 and tell me what you find? They are separated by several verses, but there is also a shift in the line of thought. That is what context is. It is a particular line of thought and Peter has changed the subject. You violate context by trying to link two verses that are speaking to two different issues as if they are part of the same line of thought. Care to be more specific in what constitutes shift in line of thought and different issues unless I am just supposed to take your word for it? It refers to those who are dead. The Gospel was preached (past tense) to those who are (present tense) dead. It was preached to them so that they could live in the spirit as God lives. It was a way of saying that that those who are dead heard the Gospel that was preached to them prior to their death so that they could live with God in heaven. It is not a reference to ante-diluvian age sinners as you keep trying to assert. And yes it would include martyrs who gave their lives for the Gospel. Again please provide scriptural backing for your claims. You have the habit of drawing conclusions without corresponding scriptural evidence. Uh, this chapter (I Pet. 4) only has 19 verses. The disobedient in 3:20 are not the people being reference in 4:6 Again, please explain why they are not the same referents. If Paul meant for the entire 18th verse of Psalm 68 to apply, you might have a point. But Paul's handling of Psalm 68:18 only reinforces my position. Paul is making an application, not an interpretation of Pslam 68:18. He selected the portion of that verse that applied to the point he was making. Paul's point is the gifts. He is not claiming that Jesus went to hell to release the people there. Again you are forcing your view upon the passage and contradicting the context of this passage. Let me demonstrate. You claim that: "Paul's point is the gifts" which might be a reasonable explanation since Paul does refer to spiritual gifts/offices in Eph 4:11. However Eph 4:8-10 is connected to vs 7 preceeding it which states "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift." Therefore the gift does not refer to spiritual gifts but to God's gift of grace. The NASB reads: But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it says, “When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He gave gifts to men.” God gave the gift of his immeasurable grace to the captives just as he apportioned it. Who are we to argue?

I am pointing out that the context of Rev. 21 and 22 are different than in the passages you cited referencing the “kings of the earth.” The “kings of the earth” who were enemies of Christ are dead and the kings of the earth mentioned in Rev. 21 and 22 are not the same people. What you are doing is making an unwarranted assumption that every reference of “kings of the earth” are always talking about the same people, but in Rev. 21 an 22, these are kings are different people. You are penciling Universalism into the text by assuming that they were the enemies who went to hell and were saved in hell. You forcing Universalism on to the text. A classic example of eisogesis which is a very unreliable and sloppy way to handle Scripture. Somehow you have managed to evade my direct question, so I will ask you yet another time. Do you deny that "kings of the earth" refers to God's enemies? Revelation 6:15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, Revelation 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” Revelation 17:18 And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.” Revelation 18:3 For all nations have drunk the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living.” Revelation 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who committed sexual immorality and lived in luxury with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning. Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. In each of the above verses the Greek for "kings of the earth" reads "βασιλεις της γης". Revelation 21:24 reads "The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. In this verse the Greek also reads "βασιλεις της γης." Thus the same kings of the earth in each of the previous verses are exactly the same kings in Rev 21:24. I have demonstrated that I have not penciled anything in by directly referring you to the Greek text so your problem is not with me or universalism but with the text itself. But your claim is that “kings of the earth” are saints who rule in the New Heaven and New Earth. Your claim is that the enemy kings of the earth get saved in hell and thus become “saints” and are ruling the earth. The reference to the kings of the earth is pointless if they are not ruling. The very fact that there are kings on the earth during the New Heavens and New Earth indicates that there are nations and there are kings ruling over them during that era. At least that is what one would intuitively deduce if they were honest about the text. If you review my posts, I made no such claim. I never said that the saints rule in the New Heaven/Earth. I simply stated that saints are residents and inhabitants of the New Jerusalem. There are saints who rule with Christ during the millennium but that of course is different time period prior to the New Heaven & Earth. The Bible says nothing about anyone except Christ ruling in the New Jerusalem. In fact the saints in Rev 22:3 are not called rulers but are instead servants. "And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him." Ah, but you only quoted part of the verse. Here is the whole thing in context: Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Php 2:9-11) That is not a statement about any redemptive property of hell. It is a statement that all of creation even the demons of hell should rightfully bown the knee and acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. It is not a confession of Him as Savior, but as Lord. It is an acknowledgement of His rightful place of authority over all of the universe and this is to the glory of God the Father. Those in hell are not submitting to Jesus as Savior, because it is also referring to the demons who Jesus did not die for and cannot be redeemed. Yes you may be right as even within universalism there is no agreement as to whether the devil/demons are "saved." However within the context of Col 1:19-20 I believe that all men are eventually reconciled to God. "For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." This verse is not one of mere acknowledgment of who God is in terms of his authority but it unequivocally declares that ALL will be reconciled to him. There can be no peace unless all are reconciled. There can be no more curse if there are those still suffering in the lake of fire. I have already responded to that statement in your post and showed how you mishandled that text. Go back and read. Your non sequitur argument is quite unconvincing to me especially if you are continuing to base it on the separation of chapters and verses. As I already pointed out the original Greek manuscripts are not enumerated by chapter and verse.

You're equating bowing at the name of Jesus with redemption. They aren't the same thing. It is one thing to make a claim and quite another to support it. You have done the first but are lacking the second. You're the one who made the claim they're the same, therefore the onus is on you to support that claim. I simply pointed out that you haven't done so. No, the onus is on you to provide a counter argument on how "they aren't the same thing." All you have done is to make a claim with no scriptural backing which is not at all convincing. If you bothered to read the very next verse it states 11"and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. In vs 10 bowing the knee indicates lordship which vs 11 confirms. God will redeem and reconcile ALL to himself. Col 1:20-22 And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,

You're equating bowing at the name of Jesus with redemption. They aren't the same thing. It is one thing to make a claim and quite another to support it. You have done the first but are lacking the second.

Revelation 22:14 is simply stating that, in light of what has been revealed, how "blessed are those who wash their robes..." This is not a commentary on the previous comments on the kings of the earth. It is simply a pronouncement of blessing on believers/followers of Jesus. That verse applies to me, right now, which is why it is in the present tense. It is meant to be an encouragment to believers in the here and now, in whatever period they happen to be reading this passage. I can see that you have no understanding of the Greek tenses as the Greek language is a much more exacting and detailed language than English. The word plunontes or washing, refers to those who are currently and presently engaged in the action of washing their clothes. It does not apply to you (or me) as John is describing what he is seeing in REAL-TIME as if watching a movie unfold before his eyes. He is watching and describing things that are occurring at the time of the New Jerusalem and the lake of fire and not in the "here and now' as you mistakenly claim. That is what universalism teaches, but that is not what the Bible teaches. God is merciful, but the offer of mercy will come to an end. At some point the gates will shut and for most people, that is when they die. God never runs out of mercy, but man does run out of time. Can you reference me just one single verse in all of Scripture that supports your claim that "at some point the gates will shut?" Rev 21:25 certainly contradicts your speculation "On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there." Those words ONLY apply to those who chose Jesus in this life who are in the New Heavens and New Earth. For them, there is no longer any curse. It is not saying that death, hell and judgment no longer exist. It simply applies to those in the New Heavens and New Earth and only to them. For those who rejected Jesus, there is nothing but a curse, death, pain, judgment, agony for all eternity without end. I agree with you that your interpretation could be true based on your stance but based on my view I could as easily say that there will be no more curse at all - especially since the gift is greater than the trespass according to Rom 5:15-18 Yeah, that is an invitation being made to reader, not to those in hell. That is not an eschatological prophecy about the redemption of people in hell. You really need to study in context instead of reading everything through the filter of universalism. And as if you don't read everything through the filter of eternal torment? Everyone including you has their biases. But again your lack of attention to the Greek verb tenses undermines your claim. Do yourself a favor and examine the real context by examining a Greek interlinear and look at the verb tenses in Rev 22. In vs. 8 John describes himself as currently hearing and seeing the events taking place in real time. In v 17 the invitation is being issued to the one who is hearing, thirsting and wishing - all present tense actions. Anyone can create a doctrine and make the Bible say whatever they want it to say by just stringing verses together. Let's look at each of these passages. 1.I Pet. 3:18-20: All this passage states is that Jesus made an announcement. It doesn't say what Jesus preached. We need not think that Jesus was in hell giving an altar call, as the passage suggests no such thing. Jesus' victory or the devil, sin, death and hell were proclaimed to the spirits in prison. Trying to link this to an entirely separate discussion in chapter 4 is extremely tenuous and unwarranted, as the subject matter in the two chapters are entirely different and speak to different issues. 2. In I Pet. 4:6 Peter chapter four begins by discussing those who have suffered in the flesh for Christ. That is the theme of the chapter. The context demands that we understand 4:6 as referencing to believers who have already died. The Gospel was preached to those who ARE dead (due to their being martyrs for Christ) and as a result they are living in the spirit just as God is. It is reference to those who are in the faith who suffer for Christ and die in that condition. They are now living eternally as God is living. There is no exegetical conncection between this passage and I Pet. 3:18-20. 3.Eph. 4:7-10: "Lower regions of the earth" refers not to hell, but the grave. This passage, refers to Jesus incarnation, death, burial, resurrection and ascension in a nutshell. It is a summary of Jesus ministry as Savior and results of that ministry are in the verses that follow. Jesus did not go into the deepest region of hell were the wicked dead abide. He did not bring anyone out of hell and this passage doesn't imply that He did. This passage begins with a quote from Ps. 68:18 which you also cite but your handling of this passage is also wrong because it doesn't refer to captives being led out of hell. Paul is using that imagery to make a didactic point. On the face of it you are grasping at straws at this point by trying to cite chapter and verse. The two passages are only separated by several sentences and the original text unlike our Bibles today did not even have chapters and verses assigned to them. Therefore your attempt to unlink the connection between these 2 passages is certainly baseless.Your personal interpretation turn this verse on its head. You claim "believers who have already died." There is no mention whatsoever of "martyrs." You are adding your own ideas to the text itself. What the text ACTUALLY does say is that these dead were DISOBEDIENT v20. Hardly the stuff that describe believers, much less martyrs wouldn't you say? Ps 68:18 ....You have received gifts among men,Even from the rebellious, That the Lord God might dwell there. The plain reading of scripture speaks for itself and contradicts your point. But that is not a biblical doctrine and is not taught by the few verses you provide. You have provided nothing that one could build such a doctrine on because your approach relies on ignoring literary context. In doing so you are allowing universalism to drive your interpretation of Scripture rather than letting each passage speak for itself in its own context. As I have demonstrated you are the one adding your personal ideas to the text and your lack of studying the text in its original language especially as it pertains to the verb tenses employed distorts your understanding. That is not true. I would much rather see people get saved today. But the urgency of the preaching of the Gospel and its necessity are driven by the simple fact that if one dies separated from God, there is no longer any hope. Far from be a motiviatoin to want to see peoplpe suffer, it is a motivation to see people saved. Universalism is the antithesis of the Gospel because in that view everyone will be saved no matter what. There is no real need to turn to Jesus in this life if we are going to suffer for a temporary time period and get saved anyway. Why preach anything at all if people are going to be saved whether they believe the Gospel now or not??? Simply because believing the gospel in this life will save someone from even spending a minute in the lake of fire which is not a nice place to be where there will be darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth. Would you want to suffer there even for a temporary time period? Not me. Nuff said.

Not true. I am following the context. The weak hermeneutics belongs to you alone. I don't know what context you're following but it is certainly not found in the book of Revelation. Are you denying that whenever the phrase "kings of the earth" is found in Revelation it always refers to God's enemies? Yeah, you are mixing contexts, though (one of the usual hallmarks of cultic/false teachers). You have in Rev. 21-22 a completely different context than in Rev. 19. What we see in Rev. 21-22 is that the earth will have nationalities and kingdoms, but these kingdoms will be ruled by some of those who, in life, chose Jesus as their Lord and Savior. You need to read Revelation more carefully as you have it backwards. In Rev 19 during the millennium the saints are co-heirs with Christ and will rule over the earth's inhabitants.. In Rev 21-22 there is no mention whatsoever of the saints ruling. Instead they are simply described as residents of the New Jerusalem. Just another example of you reading into the text what is not there, Yes only the blood of Christ redeems as long as people believe. Hell is indeed redemptive - if it were not so then this verse would not be true "so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth," Phil 2:10 In my previous post I showed what Jesus did when between his death and resurrection he emptied hell of its captives. Would he not do the same to those in the lake of fire?

You are very long on your feelings but very short on facts and scriptural backing. It is appointed for man to die once but the nature and length of God’s judgment is not specified in that particular verse therefore you reading into the verse whatever you want it to mean concerning God’s judgment. Moreover you have not interacted with the texts I have offered nor have you countered with your own texts. Would you care to document/reference your claims regarding Origen or am I just supposed to take your word for it? Your post is essentially just your personal opinion which is fine but it certainly doesn’t make for a convincing argument.

My last post left open the question/possibility of post-mortem evangelism as the “kings of the earth” are somehow allowed to enter the New Jerusalem. The verb tense in Rev 22:14 is worth noting: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.” The verb wash comes from the Greek word pluno, however in this verse the Greek word is plunontes which is the present active participle of pluno. Therefore the verse should read “those who are washing their robes….” If the saints inside the New Jerusalem have already washed their robes, then who are those still washing their robes? The only people are those outside the city in the lake of fire. But they are not supposed to get a second chance to wash their robes in the lake of fire – or do they? The belief of universalism is that God is merciful and gives people a second chance even after death. The lake of fire is seen as a temporary place of pruning to reconcile those to God rather than a place of eternal place of punishment. No longer will there be any curse. Rev 22:3 (NIV) At the end Revelation one must ask why are the Spirit and the bride are still issuing open invitations to partake of living water? The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life. (Rev 22:17) Those who argue for eternal punishment will claim that there is no precedent or evidence whatsoever for post-mortem evangelism. But what did Jesus himself do between his death and resurrection? One of the earliest statements of orthodox belief is known as the Apostle’s Creed. It affirms that Jesus descended into hell. Matt 12:40 states: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. What was his purpose and what did he do there? 1 Pet 3:18-20 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. What did Jesus’ preaching accomplish? 1 Pet 4:6 For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. Eph 4:7-10 But to each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Therefore he says, “When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.” Now this, “He ascended”, what is it but that he also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. Ps 68:18 When you ascended on high, you took many captives; you received gifts from people, even from the rebellious—that you, Lord God, might dwell there. The doctrine of the harrowing of hell refers to Christ preaching the Good News to the dead in Hades who were formerly disobedient and He thus emptied hell of its captives and led them in triumphal procession as he ascended into heaven. Thus the idea that those in the lake of fire get a second chance is not without precedent. Obviously this teaching is not a popular one as it goes against those who would rather see people punished forever.

I think the problem here is that you seem to conveniently and selectively ignore everything the Bible has to say about these kings: Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great." And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh. (Rev 19:17-21) The kings you mention from Revelation 19 and prior verses are destroyed prior to the New Heaven and New Earth. The kings of the earth that exist in the New Heavens and New Earth are from among the righteous beleivers who trusted in Jesus as Lord and Savior. There may be believers today who may one day take on the role of "king" in the New Heavens and New Earth. It really isn't that perplexing if you don't have an agenda like universalism to push. Your insistence on promoting an ungodly and unbiblical teaching is driving how you interpret Scripture. You are assuming universalism and penciling it into the Bible. There is no way one can get universalism out of the Bible when it is read in the sense in which the Bible presents itself. You have to string verses together like lights on a Christmas tree, while ignoring immediate and literary context in order to squeeze universalism out of the Bible. You have to work really, really hard to make it fit, which only points to how wrong universalism is. You are attempting to make an argument from exception which is as exceedingly weak hemeneutical position to take. As I previously stated, the specific phrase "kings of the earth" in Revelation always and without exception applies to God's enemies and not the saints as you claim. The kings of the earth are destroyed at Christ's second coming and at the great white throne judgment are thrown into the lake of fire which is outside the city. The gates of the city are never shut and as Rev 21:24 plainly states the "kings of the earth" shall bring their glory into it. Since the kings of the earth enter the city from being in the lake of fire, somehow they must have been made clean since we are told that no unclean thing can enter the city. The "kings of the earth" refers to God's enemies in every single scripture passage referred to in Revelation but somehow in Rev 21:24 you coveniently for the sake of your theology change its meaning to "righteous believers." I much prefer to take the plain reading of Scripture and therefore cannot accept your forced interpretation upon the text.

What is Hell? How is Hell described in the Bible? Part 1 of 3 (divided this out this into 3 parts 1. Hell – A place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Luke 13:18 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. 2. Hell – It will be a furnace of fire with wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matt. 13:40-43 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! 3. Jesus Himself said hell was eternal. Matt. 18:8 8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. 4. Hell – a place of darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth. (Matt. 22:11-13; Matt. 25:29-30) Matt. 22:11-13 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and[a] cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Matt. 25:29-30 29 ‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ God bless, GE When one uses the generic term "hell" are you referring to sheol, hades, gehenna, the abyss, lake of fire? For purpose of this discussion unless otherwise specified I'm referring to hell as in the lake of fire. Who are in the lake of fire? "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” Rev 21:8 Where is the lake of fire? Outside the New Jerusalem. "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." Rev 22:14-15 NIV Note that only those who wash their robes have the right to enter into the New Jerusalem. Who are these people? They are the saved because they are the overcomers and have washed their robes in this lifetime giving them the right to claim their citizenship in the New Jerusalem. Is anyone else allowed in? If the answer is "no" because no one gets a second chance in hell then a reasonable question to ask is: Why are the gates to the city always left open? By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. Rev 21:24-25 As this verse states the gates of the city are left open so that the kings of the earth will enter and bring their glory in. Who are these kings? In every instance without exception in the book of Revelation, the phrase "kings of the earth" refers to the enemies of God: Revelation 6:15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, Revelation 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” Revelation 17:18 And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.” Revelation 18:3 For all nations have drunk the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living.” Revelation 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who committed sexual immorality and lived in luxury with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning. Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. Thus we are left with the perplexing dilemma of how can God's sworn enemies as depicted in Revelation be allowed to enter the gates of the New Jerusalem which is reserved for the saints? Do the enemies of God have a second chance? I have limited time outside of my schedule to interact with all the posts but something to ponder for now.

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural. All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved. Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism. Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved. Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested. I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view. So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say? Lk 2:10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people? Jn 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation? The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch. When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do? 1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe. The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively. Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Notice the parallelism in this verse. If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well. 1 Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Rom 5:15-19 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one. Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable. The gift is greater than the trespass. To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. Another example of parallelism. If all die in Adam, all live in Christ. Col 1:18-20 He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself. The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught. There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word. The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts. This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same. First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well. However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man. Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin. This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ. The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14, Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm. But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross. He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him. We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39. We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection. All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53. Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity. God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ. There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form. It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD. You have not adequately dealt with the scripture passages I have quoted, instead you have lumped them together and have eisegeted them based on your doctrinal view instead of exegeting the scripture verses. As for your claim regarding the 5th Ecumenical Council - do you realize it was convened almost 300 years after Origen was tortured and killed by the Emperor Decius in 254 AD? If unversalism was so heretical one would certainly expect the heresy hunters to have taken action much sooner rather than waiting 3 centuries after the man died. Furthermore the bishops bypassed the authority of the Pope and conspired with the Emperor Justinian to order that the council convene. It is questionable if the council anathematized the actual teachings of Origen or a form of Origenism, which had practically nothing in common with Origen [such as cycles of reincarnation and the Anthropomorphism]. The fifteen anathemas were proposed not by the Church but by the Emperor. There is no proof the Pope ever agreed to them, nor is there proof he ever recanted his resistance to the council. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that: It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it. It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated. Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554. It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation. It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141). The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked. It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.

You need to reread what I wrote. I stated that the lake of fire exists and the unsaved do end up there. The question is whether they remain there for eternity. I find it interesting that people are so quick to form their opinions without even bothering to closely read what I wrote not to mention investigate further for themselves but then again that is your prerogative.

The problem with this is the view that the lake of fire will simply be a remedial period. The Bible NEVER presents the lake of fire as anything but an eternal death. Furthermore, salvation is ONLY by grace through faith in the finished work on the cross. Salvation cannot be obtained by spending time in the lake of fire. I am not a Calvinist, but neither does the Bible teach that everyone will be saved. God's will is that everyone be saved, but that doesn't mean that everyone will be saved. God's will is that no one murder, but yet people murder. People do a lot of things that are against God's will. So to say that God's will to see everyone saved will result in 100% salvation for all people doesn't stand the litmus test of Scripture. Jesus teaches in Sermon on the Mount that most people will choose the broad road to destruction and only a few will find the narrow road to life. The Bible teaches that man can either have eternal life or eternal damnation (Matt. 25). "Eternal" means the same thing in both cases. There is no case to be made for salvation via the lake of fire. The ONLY plan of salvation the Bible presents is grace through faith in the finished work on the cross. The Bible never presents the lake of fire as time of purification or remedial learning where a person can be made fit to enter the Kingdom of God. You are presenting another Gospel, another way salvation and all true followers of Jesus must reject such. Salvation is a transformational relationship with Jesus. That is the only way it can be found. Eternal life is a person, not a length of time. Jesus is eternal life, as He claimed to be eternal life in John 14:6. Just as no one can be made right with God through keeping a set of rules, no one is going to be saved through the lake of fire. You simiply cannot produce a biblical platform for your case. I noted that you came to this concluson by studying the early church fathers. You did not come to your view from Scripture. The Bible is the final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practices. Unless you can make a biblical case, your view stands as the product of human reasoning. I clearly wrote earlier that I not only looked at church history, but also examined the scriptures - I did my homework with due diligence. I suggest you do the same thing and tell me what you come up with. I contend that all means all. You must explain why it only means some. I contend that aion means an age. You must explain why it means eternity. I contend that God is omnipotent and more than able to save all. You must explain why God is impotent and His arm is too short to save everyone. Eternal life is not a person as you say - it is a relationship. One has a relationship with God as long as he or she is abiding in Him.