Universalism, Conditionalism, and Traditionalism?

dgsinclair wrote:

Timothew wrote: I asked that question here: www.christianforums.com/t7606980/

I suggested the term "tormentalism". If the main feature of a doctrine about God is eternal torment, then "tormentalism" fits the doctrine well. Some other interesting terms came up in the discussion.
(An aside, I can't go back to that forum, I've been banned for a month.)
How about "Augustinianism"?

Other terms included "Hellist" and "Laker" (for the lake of fire).

LOL! Didn't you see my list of principles? You have to choose the *positive* side of the coin - not "Annihilationism" but "Conditionalism" - I think we're stuck with Conditionalism, which I still think is too vague.

I wonder how many other doctrines are labeled "Traditionalism" which is totally ambiguous without context. I guess all orthodox beliefs that don't have their own specific label.

Seriously though, I think we need to adopt a new term.

I agree. "Traditionalism" is ambiguous. Holding to tradition in terms of what doctrine? Those that hold to eternal torture in hell refuse to allow a label to be put on this horrific doctrine. Try googling "traditionalism". A wide range of topics come up. We are not saying that all traditions are wrong. Just the false belief that the wages of sin is to be tortured forever in hell. I like some traditions. I will keep the tradition of hanging my stockings by the chimney with care, even though I hold no hopes that Saint Nicholas soon will be there.

The doctrine that the lost are tormented for all eternity is "eternal tormentism". It is the only logical label for the doctrine. It is not "positive" or "negative". It is descriptive.

ETA: Tormentism was used by Froom in 1964. This term has the "weight of history" behind it (well, 48 years of history) so we should use it as well.

F. Eternal Tormentism Established by Ter­tullian.—Now recall the second school. After a fatal time gap, Athenagoras (first Christian Father to use the term "immortal soul"), about A.D. 188 contended that the soul is immortal and imperishable. Tertullian then developed this into a system. His argument was: Since all souls are immortal, the punishment of the wicked must be eternal. He stressed a sacred fire that never consumes but renews as it burns, eternally killing but never terminating. Follow­ing Chrysostum and Jerome, Augustine finally added his great prestige to the postulate of in­herent immortality for all men, and conscious torment for the wicked forever. This soon be­came the predominant faith of the dominant church, continuing largely unchallenged through the medieval centuries.
www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1964/Ja...immortal-soul-theory

"He stressed a sacred fire that never consumes but renews as it burns, eternally killing but never terminating

On what planet does that make sense? Eternally killing but never terminating? If the killing doesn't terminate whatever it is killing then in what sense is it killing? If the soul/person doesn't die then in what sense is it being killed? Just because it is experiencing pain? Does that mean that I died the last time I stubbed my toe? Someone is honestly going to have to explain that concept to me at some point.

Givemhell wrote: "He stressed a sacred fire that never consumes but renews as it burns, eternally killing but never terminating

On what planet does that make sense? Eternally killing but never terminating? If the killing doesn't terminate whatever it is killing then in what sense is it killing? If the soul/person doesn't die then in what sense is it being killed? Just because it is experiencing pain? Does that mean that I died the last time I stubbed my toe? Someone is honestly going to have to explain that concept to me at some point.

Stubbing your toe killed you because the person you were with an uninjured toe no longer exists. Now you exist as a person with a stubbed toe. Or something like that.