Church fathers view on hell
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:55 am
Can someone give me a list of church fathers that did not hold to the eternal torment view of hell?
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
[Isa. I. II ... 'the fire which you have kindled'.] This seems to indicate that the individual sinner kindles the flame of his persona! fire and that he is not plunged into some fire kindled by another, ... God acts in dealing with sinners as a physician ... the fury of his anger is profitable for the purging of souls. Even that penalty which is said to be imposed by way of fire is understood as applied to assist a sinner to health De Principiis, II.x.4,6
Speculation:Most of these quotes illustrate how far beyond scripture the teachers of the church have historically been willing to go, in their speculations, in order to frighten non-Christians.
If "firm evidence" is required, then to hold any view of hell must be recognized as "speculative." In scripture, there is "evidence" for all three views—somewhat less for the traditional view than for the others, but still some evidence. If "firm" evidence means "conclusive" evidence, then nothing better than speculation is to had on this subject.Speculation:
"the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence."
We can say it is speculative. In terms of plain, declarative statements from scripture, we can't claim certainty that there will be post-mortem opportunities to repent—any more than we can claim certainty that there will be no such opportunities. The Bible affirms neither proposition. In that sense, both views are equally speculative. However, a greater confidence in one or the other proposition may be justified by examining how each view might be harmonized with the immense biblical data that speaks clearly about the character of God.If those early church fathers engaged in speculation about hell, what are we to say about the universalist claim that people will go into hell and be rehabilitated, repent, and be saved?
They had the same number as we have—no more, no less. There is no guarantee that they were better exegetes of the available biblical material than are modern readers. True Bereans, today, even in the face of certain patristic testimony, must search the scriptures to see if these things are so.The earliest of the fathers had numerous NT statements that legitimately can be understood to speak of either eternal punishment or annihilation.
Apparently, the evidence was not "firm" enough to inform any consensus among the early fathers on this subject. No consensus existed.Perhaps the early fathers' evidence wasn't firm enough to form a conclusion on the matter but the universalist idea of salvation in hell doesn't even rise to the level of speculation as there is nothing in the scripture describing such a scenario.
It is interesting, though, that the fathers who rejected eternal conscous torment were the ones who spole Koine Greek (i.e., New Testament Greek) as their native language, while it was primarily the Latin fathers (like Augustine, who admitted that he could not read Greek) who championed the eternal conscious torment view.We can not say the early fathers misunderstood the meaning of aionios, seeing that it was their native tongue.
I wonder where? When Jesus taught about Gehenna, He was usually (probably in all cases, but one) talking to His own disciples. There is good reason for unbelievers to be afraid, and such a fact is not absent from Christ's teachings—though it was not the most prominent theme in His preaching to the lost. We are told that, when He was evangelizing, His topic was the "good news of the Kingdom of God" (Mark 1:14-15; Matt.24:14). His message was, therefore, primarily positive (unless "good news" can be regarded as negative).And speaking of frightening non-Christians, Jesus seems too have made a regular practice of it.
And you responded:And speaking of frightening non-Christians, Jesus seems too have made a regular practice of it.
I do not want to belabor the point as it isn't the main issue. I'm thinking you mean "in all cases but one" as a reference to the sermon on the mount but you do not need to go far to find other examples. In Matthew 11:24 Jesus threatened the people of three cities with a worse fate than Sodom, a clear reference to hell. If hell is a place of reformation how would it be worse than Sodom? And these words, as in the SOM, were spoken to the multitude (11:7). Again in Matthew 13 we find the parable of the tares being burned up was again spoken to the multitude, in v.34 Matthew informs us "all these things Jesus spoke to the multitudes".I wonder where? When Jesus taught about Gehenna, He was usually (probably in all cases, but one) talking to His own disciples.
There are plain statements in scripture affirming an awful fate for those who will not repent. The just referenced parable of the tares being just one example. We have numerous references to those going into hell and the terrible consequences that await them. There is nothing in the scriptures describing conversion in hell and a happy thereafter. The universalist has no license to preach or proclaim their message.In terms of plain, declarative statements from scripture, we can't claim certainty that there will be post-mortem opportunities to repent—any more than we can claim certainty that there will be no such opportunities.
I said what I meant (this is my general practice). In all the passages about Gehenna, only one is known to have been addressed to an unbelieving audience. I am referring to Matthew 23:33. The Sermon on the Mount was addressed to the disciples (see Matthew 5:1-2; cf., Luke 6:20). There are references to the final judgment of the Last Day in other passages, as you observed, though this is not to be equated with Gehenna, which Jesus said was to be the fate of the apostate Jews in His own generation (Matt.24:33, 36).I'm thinking you mean "in all cases but one" as a reference to the sermon on the mount but you do not need to go far to find other examples.
There are plain statements in scripture affirming an awful fate for those who will not repent. The just referenced parable of the tares being just one example. We have numerous references to those going into hell and the terrible consequences that await them.
As I said, there is equally nothing in the scriptures denying such post-mortem conversions. Therefore, the deniers have no license to preach or proclaim their respective messages either.There is nothing in the scriptures describing conversion in hell and a happy thereafter. The universalist has no license to preach or proclaim their message.
You seem to have overlooked Luke 6:12-17, where we are informed that the audience for the SOM was the twelve (them), the other disciples, and a great throng of people. I can find no commentator who does not hold the view of these three categories in the audience.I said what I meant (this is my general practice). In all the passages about Gehenna, only one is known to have been addressed to an unbelieving audience. I am referring to Matthew 23:33.
I have no problem with the preaching of the gospel by all who do so. But repentance and salvation in hell is not part of the gospel. All agree that the lost wind up in hell, the faithful preacher will leave it at that. You appear to imply that you can preach what is not in the scriptures while taking exception to the early fathers "use of non-biblical expressions" in their attempt to exegete the scriptures. I think it would be wonderful if all who preach and teach would use strictly scriptural expressions but I would be surprised if any can be found who consistently do so, and many who do so hardly at all.As I said, there is equally nothing in the scriptures denying such post-mortem conversions. Therefore, the deniers have no license to preach or proclaim their respective messages either.
Of course, the message all of us are called to preach and proclaim has little or nothing to do with any view of hell, so I am not sure why you would forbid restorationists, any more than other evangelicals, to preach and proclaim the gospel.