u/Flaky-Finance3454

Hi all! I was wondering about a claim that is made several times about aionios and aidios. I'm thinking about the claim that early universalists never (or very rarely) used the term aidios to describe eschatological punishments and instead they used it with considerable more frequence to describe life and blessedness.

While I don't think that this necessarily means that aidios and aionios weren't seen as synonyms among the early Christians, this perhaps suggests that the early universalists adopted a different usage of the two terms. So, perhaps this difference in frequency does suggest that aidios was used to convey more definitiveness than aionios.

However, in order for this evidence to be significant, we would expect that supporters of the view of unending torments actually used a lot more frequently aidios to describe eschatological punishments. If this is true, then, the argument about the frequency of use of the two adjectives would be more interesting, indeed.

At the same time, though, there are examples of early Greek christians that seem to use aionios as strictly 'unending'. For instance, in the mid-second century the Christian Justin Martyr wrote: "and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years." (First Apology, 8, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm ; although, to be honest, in Plato's dialogues Phaedo, Gorgias and Republic you find references to incurable souls - the worst sinners - that never go out of Tartarus, so for some Plato seems to have envisaged unending torments... this like however argues that Justin was an annihilationist: https://rethinkinghell.com/es/2025/01/28/irenaeus-and-continuance-3-enduring-questions/ ). Later, John Chrysostom in his third homily on 2 Thessalonians: "There are many men, who form good hopes not by abstaining from their sins, but by thinking that hell is not so terrible as it is said to be, but milder than what is threatened, and temporary, not eternal; and about this they philosophize much. But I could show from many reasons, and conclude from the very expressions concerning hell, that it is not only not milder, but much more terrible than is threatened. But I do not now intend to discourse concerning these things. For the fear even from bare words is sufficient, though we do not fully unfold their meaning. But that it is not temporary, hear Paul now saying, concerning those who know not God, and who do not believe in the Gospel, 'that they shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction'. How then is that temporary which is everlasting? " (source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm )

IIRC, both used 'aionios' translated here as 'everlasting' and it seems that they understood it indeed as 'everlasting'. However, I'm wondering if it is true that aidios was also used by supporters of eternal damnation more frequently to describe punishments.

Hi all!

As I said other times here, I'm a theist agnostic about Christianity, with a sympathy for Christian universalism. I'm considering to become a Christian again but eschatology alongside other things in which I seem to have a view that goes against the 'orthodoxy' keep me outside of Christianity.

Regarding eschatology, I do accept that there was a significant prevalence of universalists in the first centuries, although I doubt that they were really the 'majority' as sometimes it is claimed. Also, I do accept that even later in the 'Church of the East' universalism was somewhat popular even in the Middle Ages (indeed, in the past I wrote some posts about this) but it was the classic 'exception that proves the rule', so to speak. So, I'm not saying that Christian universalism is a novel idea that modern people 'conjured up' from writings of some obscure heretical sects that were unfortunately rediscovered recently.

The problem is simply this: all evidence suggests that in most Christian traditions it seems that a 'consensus' of sorts was reached according to which the belief that all human beings shall be saved was simply off-limits. So, the bulk of the Christian traditions simply abandoned the idea and more often than not actively opposed it. The problem with saying that 'traditions' can be wrong for Christians is that, after all, even the Bible itself was the product of 'tradition' (in a broad sense): the very decision of, for instance, including some texts and not others in the Old and New Testaments was after all a decision that was made in the context of the 'tradition' (again, in a broad sense). Hence if, starting from at least from the sixth century universalism was seen as decisively wrong, it seems that 'tradition' in a broad sense was mostly wrong about a very important doctrine: the fate of human beings that are not saved and indeed that some or even many human beings will not be saved. It does not help that apparently most canonized saints (in both West and East) were supporters of ECT.

All of this despite the fact that, to be honest, I believe that the ethical teachings of Christianity actually favour the formation of a desire for the salvation of all human beings. I mean, if Christians are called to love oneself and others (including enemies), it seems that this love would motivate a desire for the salvation of both oneself and others (again, enemies included). Despite this, even a reticence to believe that some will be lost forever was seen with suspicion (and, to be honest, we see all of this even nowadays: many even look with suspicion hopeful universalism!). Rather, it seems that for most of Christian history Christians were taught and forced themselves to accept the idea that for some or even many human beings - including oneself and one's loved ones - the 'final condition' could be one in which for them it would be better to have never been born*.

This certainly wasn't an easy idea to accept and it seems that for most Christians this was an idea that one must accept.

So, all of this to ask: how can one trust, have enough faith in a religion if one also believes that in its history most of its adherents were simply wrong on such an important issue? Becoming part of a religion in some serious ways also implies to accept, for instance, to orient one's entire life in order to make such a religion the most important aspect of one's life (and indeed the first of the Two Great Commandments that are attributed to Jesus seems to say precisely this). It is not an easy thing to do in itself, let alone when you also have to either accept to believe that for some/many people the final state will be one without hope or that the bulk of the Christian tradition (in a broad sense) has been wrong. Given this, I can't help but think that past and present Christian universalists might have been missed and miss something that most Christians do not. Unfortunately, I can't shake this nagging doubt.

*In Mark 14:21 and Matthew 26:24 Jesus is quoted as saying precisely this about Judas Iscariot. I know that universalists have come up with different ways to interpret these verses than a literal "for Judas it was better to have never come into existence" but I believe that the most common interpretation of those words in Christian history was precisely this.

P.S. Thanks in advance for those who will respond. Also, sorry if I will reply late or even not reply. This is also because I want to ponder seriously and calmly about this and I am currently busy with other matters.