Could most modern translations be in error?

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
St. Gregory of Nyssa accepted the idea of apocatastasis from Origen. However, this part of St. Gregory's writings has been unequivocally rejected by the subsequent Church Fathers:

  • St. Varsanofios the Great, criticizing the doctrine of apocatastasis, when asked about St. Gregory's opinion, has answered: "do not think that people, though also saints, could completely understand all depths of God... Even if a saint speaks about such opinions, you will not find that he confirmed the words as though had the statement from above, but that they resulted from the doctrine of his former teachers, and he, trusting their knowledge of them, did not inquire of God whether it was true."citation needed
  • St. Herman of Constantinople has also expressed a negative opinion of the doctrine, but he supposes that the works of St. Gregory have been damaged by Origenists: "those who liked that absurd idea, as if for demons and for people who will be subjected to eternal punishment, is possible to expect the discontinuance... they have taken his clean and sensible works and have added the dark and disastrous poison of Origen's
  • St. Mark of Ephesus, after citing St. Gregory, exclaims: "Are we wrong when we do not believe those words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, considering them forgeries, or, even if they are original, to not accept as contradictory to Scripture and to the general dogma?"
  • St. Maximus the Confessor, rejecting an Origenistic interpretation of apocatastasis, considered that St. Gregory used this term "in sense of restoration of cognitive forces of the man in that condition of the correct relation to truth."
  • St. Photius the Great has expressed the Church's general interpretation in one phrase: "that in works of St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, where restoration is mentioned, it is not accepted by the Church."
It was through Origen that the Platonist doctrine of the apokatastasis passed to St. Gregory of Nyssa, and simultaneously to St. Jerome, at least during the time that St. Jerome was an Origenist. It is certain, however, that St. Jerome understands it only of the baptized: "In restitutione omnium, quando corpus totius ecclesiæ nunc dispersum atque laceratum, verus medicus Christus Jesus sanaturus advenerit, unusquisque secundum mensuram fidei et cognitionis Filii Dei . . . suum recipiet locum et incipiet id esse quod fuerat" (Comment. in Eph., iv, 16; P.G., XXVI, col. 503). Everywhere else St. Jerome teaches that the punishment of the devils and of the impious, that is of those who have not come to the Faith, shall be eternal. (See Petavius, Theol. dogmat. De Angelis, 111, 112.) The "Ambrosiaster" on the other hand seems to have extended the benefits of redemption to the devils, (In Eph., iii, 10; P.L., XVII, col. 382), yet the interpretation of the "Ambrosiaster" on this point is not devoid of difficulty. [See Petavius, p. 111; also, Turmel, Histoire de la théologie positive, depuis l'origine, etc. (Paris, 1904) 187.]

From the moment, however, that anti-Origenism prevailed, the doctrine of the apokatastasis was definitely abandoned. St. Augustine protests more strongly than any other writer against an error so contrary to the doctrine of the necessity of grace. See, especially, his "De gestis Pelagii", I: "In Origene dignissime detestatur Ecclesia, quod et iam illi quos Dominus dicit æterno supplicio puniendos, et ipse diabolus et angeli eius, post tempus licet prolixum purgati liberabuntur a poenis, et sanctis cum Deo regnantibus societate beatitudinis adhærebunt." Augustine here alludes to the sentence pronounced against Pelagius by the Council of Diospolis, in 415 (P.L., XLIV, col. 325). He moreover recurs to the subject in many passages of his writings, and in City of God XXI sets himself earnestly to prove the eternity of punishment as against the Platonist and Origenist error concerning its intrinsically purgatorial character. We note, further, that the doctrine of the apokatastasis was held in the East, not only by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but also by St. Gregory of Nazianzus as well; "De seipso", 566 (P.G., XXXVII, col. 1010), but the latter, though he asks the question, finally decides neither for nor against it, but rather leaves the answer to God. Köstlin, in the "Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie" (Leipzig, 1896), I, 617, art. "Apokatastasis", names Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia as having also held the doctrine of apokatastasis, but cites no passage in support of his statement. In any case, the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm
I suggest you dig deeper instead of just accepting an article written by an organization sympathetic to the Roman Catholic church. Did you not know that apokatastasis was never condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council some 10 years later? All is not as it appears. Dogma has a way of changing, especially with regards to the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.mercyuponall.org/2017/03/23/is-origenism-heresy-on-the-fifth-ecumenical-council-in-553/
https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/09/16/david-bentley-hart-on-the-5th-ecumenical-council/
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You have your favorites. I have mine. Quite simple isn't it, Der Alter? Not to mention post #128 where Clement notes it appears you never even bothered to carefully read my reply.
There is a difference between preferring a standard language resource such as BDAG, BDB etc. which is widely used in many colleges, universities and seminaries and which were and are required by my alma mater and having a favorite because it supports ones heterodox biases and presuppositions. As for not replying to certain posters. I prefer having a person to person discussion where we discuss our own personal beliefs vs. data dump copy/pastes of pre-canned arguments from the same ol' UR websites over and over and over. I am not the only poster here who has pointed this out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You suppose much don't you? There is no credence/qualifier in my citation, yet you take the liberty to insert one just to support your view. I find that it makes for an exceedingly weak argument but if you want to believe that then so be it.
The passage requires it.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I suggest you dig deeper instead of just accepting an article written by an organization sympathetic to the Roman Catholic church. Did you not know that apokatastasis was never condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council some 10 years later? All is not as it appears. Dogma has a way of changing, especially with regards to the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.mercyuponall.org/2017/03/23/is-origenism-heresy-on-the-fifth-ecumenical-council-in-553/
https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/09/16/david-bentley-hart-on-the-5th-ecumenical-council/
Not as conclusive as you think. Modern scholarship has put doubt into whether the condemnation of the Three Chapters rolled up all of Origen's heresies. However, Cyril of Scythopolis who was at the Fifth Ecumenical Council had this to say:

“When the fifth holy ecumenical council had assembled at Constantinople a common and universal anathema was directed against Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia and against the teaching of Evagrius and Didymus on pre-existence and a universal restoration, in the presence and with the approval of the four patriarchs” (quoted by Price, p. 270). (Cyril of Scythopolis’s The Lives of the Monks of Palestine, composed sometime before his death in 558)

Add to that there are no church father nor Council Fathers thereafter protested to associating the condemnations to the 5th Ecumenical Council.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Not as conclusive as you think. Modern scholarship has put doubt into whether the condemnation of the Three Chapters rolled up all of Origen's heresies. However, Cyril of Scythopolis who was at the Fifth Ecumenical Council had this to say:

“When the fifth holy ecumenical council had assembled at Constantinople a common and universal anathema was directed against Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia and against the teaching of Evagrius and Didymus on pre-existence and a universal restoration, in the presence and with the approval of the four patriarchs” (quoted by Price, p. 270). (Cyril of Scythopolis’s The Lives of the Monks of Palestine, composed sometime before his death in 558)

Add to that there are no church father nor Council Fathers thereafter protested to associating the condemnations to the 5th Ecumenical Council.
A friend who knew I was a UR/Uni- guy, but which I ministered with often at his request, once gave me a book from his 'very Catholic' dad. He thought I should read it because it had to do with Origen. It was a 'funny' read. The church did condemn Origen, in this priest's scholarly and historically referenced book, but later it exonerated him, long after death, because he was still so popular and had made so many other positive contributions that the church simply could not deny. So the church 'forgave' his 'heresy' and his condemnation because, and I quote "he was misled in his belief." :doh:I about fell out of my chair laughing at 'the church's' lame reasoning for forgiveness. Aren't ALL HERESIES and ALL HERETICS from those who are simply 'misled in their' belief'? It was just religious politics at its worst IMO. I'd have loved to keep that book for 'referenced' times like this, but the friend requested that I just read it and he would return it to his father. A father who was trying use the book to get his powerfully used Charismatic son to come back to the RC. But he wanted me to read it so I would come back to 'orthodoxies' ECT position, which he still agreed with. The book failed on both accounts though. :)
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is a difference between preferring a standard language resource such as BDAG, BDB etc. which is widely used in many colleges, universities and seminaries and which were and are required by my alma mater and having a favorite because it supports ones heterodox biases and presuppositions. As for not replying to certain posters. I prefer having a person to person discussion where we discuss our own personal beliefs vs. data dump copy/pastes of pre-canned arguments from the same ol' UR websites over and over and over. I am not the only poster here who has pointed this out.
As wrote earlier Der Alter you can prefer whatever you wish. No reference tool is infallible including the ones I use. I strongly doubt that the tools you use to support your view while worthwhile, have delved into the subject area as much as Ramelli has. That is why I reference her work as that is her scholarly expertise. If you owned a Ferrari car and it needed repairs, would you take it to a Ford mechanic? No, you would take it to a mechanic who specialized in repairing Ferrari's. Thus my rationale for consulting an expert as opposed to generalists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClementofA
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not as conclusive as you think. Modern scholarship has put doubt into whether the condemnation of the Three Chapters rolled up all of Origen's heresies. However, Cyril of Scythopolis who was at the Fifth Ecumenical Council had this to say:

“When the fifth holy ecumenical council had assembled at Constantinople a common and universal anathema was directed against Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia and against the teaching of Evagrius and Didymus on pre-existence and a universal restoration, in the presence and with the approval of the four patriarchs” (quoted by Price, p. 270). (Cyril of Scythopolis’s The Lives of the Monks of Palestine, composed sometime before his death in 558)

Add to that there are no church father nor Council Fathers thereafter protested to associating the condemnations to the 5th Ecumenical Council.
And what "modern scholarship" might that be? It is also quite apparent that you did not even read or bother to read carefully the text of my citation:
“The Council that is usually cited as that which ‘condemend Origen’ is the fifth ecumenical council, the second Constantinopolitan Council, in 553 CE. First of all, its ecumenicity is in fact doubtful, since it was wanted by Justinian and not by Vigilius, the bishop of Rome, or other bishops; Vigilius was even brought to Constantinople by force, by the emperor’s order, and moreover he did not accept to declare that the council was open (Justinian had to do so). The anathemas, fifteen in number, were already prepared before the opening of the council. Here, Origen is considered to be the inspirer of the so-called Isochristoi. This was the position of the Sabaite opponents of Origen, summarized by Cyril of Scythopolis who maintained that the Council issued a definitive anathema against Origen, Theodore, Evagrius, and Didymus concerning the preexistence of souls and apokatastasis, thus ratifying Sabas’ position (V. Sab. 90). One of these previously formulated anathemas, which only waited to be ratified by the Council, was against the apokatastasis doctrine: ‘If anyone supports the monstrous doctrine of apokatastasis [τὴν τερατώδη ἀποκατάστασιν], be it anathema.’ Other anathemas concern the ‘pre-existence of souls,’ their union with bodies only after their fall, and the denial of the resurrection of the body. These doctrines have nothing to do with Origen; in fact, Origen is not the object of any authentic anathema. And Vigilius’s documents, which were finally emanated by a council that was not wanted by him, most remarkably do not even contain Origen’s name. Origen was never formally condemned by any Christian ecumenical council. [G.L.] Prestige once observed, inspiredly, that ‘Origen is the greatest of that happily small company of saints who, having lived and died in grace, suffered sentence of expulsion from the Church on earth after they had already entered into the joy of their Lord.’ We may add that Origen, strictly speaking, did not even suffer any formal expulsion from the church. One problem is that later Christian authors considered the aforementioned anathemas as referring to Origen; so, extraneous theories were ascribed to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClementofA
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
As wrote earlier Der Alter you can prefer whatever you wish. No reference tool is infallible including the ones I use. I strongly doubt that the tools you use to support your view while worthwhile, have delved into the subject area as much as Ramelli has. That is why I reference her work as that is her scholarly expertise. If you owned a Ferrari car and it needed repairs, would you take it to a Ford mechanic? No, you would take it to a mechanic who specialized in repairing Ferrari's. Thus my rationale for consulting an expert as opposed to generalists.
Your Ferrari analogy is exactly why the church failed when they allowed Augustine, who was a Latin scholar and not a Greek one, make the decision that the word AION could not only be defined as 'an age'....but as 'eternity' as well. A decision, by this powerful authority, whose intended purpose was to kill the UR/UNI movement in the "church". :doh: How utterly stupid, one word that is defined as temporal and eternal. That is simply no definition of the word at all. And when it's interpretation is based upon ones biased pretext, the context is really of secondary value. So, it is "eternal" when dealing with ECT verses, and an "age" when it is obviously ignorance to say "eternity". So, like I said, it ends up being 'no definition at all' when dealing with 'time' IMO. Hence the timeless scholarly works like YLT, Rotherham's, Concordant Literal..etc. etc. All 'works' which no one here has ever even attempted to prove, as having 'bad scholars' OR an interpretation based upon 'doctrinal bias'. As for me, I'll gladly take my chances on judgment day for believing God had a better plan than the one we believe 'the church' morphed into. A plan which makes 'our saving God' is bigger and more ruthless unforgiving despot than the world has ever credited with giving birth to.

EDIT; I just remembered. Someone did try to say the CLT translation biased the author to believe in UR/Uni-. It was a 'comment' I thought a bit strange. A man sets out to write a 'more correct' translation, and in his endeavors to do so, ends up changing his mind on such a huge doctrine as ECT. :idea:
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: ClementofA
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And what "modern scholarship" might that be? It is also quite apparent that you did not even read or bother to read carefully the text of my citation:
“The Council that is usually cited as that which ‘condemend Origen’ is the fifth ecumenical council, the second Constantinopolitan Council, in 553 CE. First of all, its ecumenicity is in fact doubtful, since it was wanted by Justinian and not by Vigilius, the bishop of Rome, or other bishops; Vigilius was even brought to Constantinople by force, by the emperor’s order, and moreover he did not accept to declare that the council was open (Justinian had to do so). The anathemas, fifteen in number, were already prepared before the opening of the council. Here, Origen is considered to be the inspirer of the so-called Isochristoi. This was the position of the Sabaite opponents of Origen, summarized by Cyril of Scythopolis who maintained that the Council issued a definitive anathema against Origen, Theodore, Evagrius, and Didymus concerning the preexistence of souls and apokatastasis, thus ratifying Sabas’ position (V. Sab. 90). One of these previously formulated anathemas, which only waited to be ratified by the Council, was against the apokatastasis doctrine: ‘If anyone supports the monstrous doctrine of apokatastasis [τὴν τερατώδη ἀποκατάστασιν], be it anathema.’ Other anathemas concern the ‘pre-existence of souls,’ their union with bodies only after their fall, and the denial of the resurrection of the body. These doctrines have nothing to do with Origen; in fact, Origen is not the object of any authentic anathema. And Vigilius’s documents, which were finally emanated by a council that was not wanted by him, most remarkably do not even contain Origen’s name. Origen was never formally condemned by any Christian ecumenical council. [G.L.] Prestige once observed, inspiredly, that ‘Origen is the greatest of that happily small company of saints who, having lived and died in grace, suffered sentence of expulsion from the Church on earth after they had already entered into the joy of their Lord.’ We may add that Origen, strictly speaking, did not even suffer any formal expulsion from the church. One problem is that later Christian authors considered the aforementioned anathemas as referring to Origen; so, extraneous theories were ascribed to him.

The original Greek Acts of the council are lost, but there is extant a very old Latin version, probably contemporary and made for the use of Vigilius, certainly quoted by his successor Pelagius I. The Baluze edition is reprinted in Mansi, "Coll. Conc.", IX, 163 sqq. In the next General Council of Constantinople (680) it was found that the original Acts of the Fifth Council had been tampered with (Hefele, op. cit., II, 855-58) in favour of Monothelitism; nor is it certain that in their present shape we have them in their original completeness (ibid., pp. 859-60). This has a bearing on the much disputed question concerning the condemnation of Origenism at this council. Hefele, moved by the antiquity and persistency of the reports of Origen's condemnation, maintains (p. 861) with Cardinal Noris, that in it Origen was condemned, but only en passant, and that his name in the eleventh anathema is not an interpolation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As wrote earlier Der Alter you can prefer whatever you wish. No reference tool is infallible including the ones I use. I strongly doubt that the tools you use to support your view while worthwhile, have delved into the subject area as much as Ramelli has. That is why I reference her work as that is her scholarly expertise. If you owned a Ferrari car and it needed repairs, would you take it to a Ford mechanic? No, you would take it to a mechanic who specialized in repairing Ferrari's. Thus my rationale for consulting an expert as opposed to generalists.
You are joking, right? On what do you base your assumption that Ramelli has delved into the subject so much? Have you even read her CV? She is the generalist.
Prof. Ilaria Ramelli, FRHistS, earned two MAs (Classics with Specialisation in Early Christianity and Philosophy with Specialisation in History), a PhD (Classics and Early Christianity), and a postdoctorate (Late Antiquity and Religion), as well as two Habilitations to Full Professor (History of Philosophy and Ancient Greek). In the last eighteen years she has been, among else, Professor of History of the Roman Christian Near East, and Fellow in Ancient Philosophy, with focus on classical and Patristic philosophy and early Christianity (Catholic University, Milan, 2003–present), as well as Senior Research Fellow in Ancient and Patristic Philosophy (Durham University).
https://www.history.ac.uk/ehsoc/about/ilaria-ramelli
 
  • Informative
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your Ferrari analogy is exactly why the church failed when they allowed Augustine, who was a Latin scholar and not a Greek one, make the decision that the word AION could not only be defined as 'an age'....but as 'eternity' as well. A decision, by this powerful authority, whose intended purpose was to kill the UR/UNI movement in the "church". :doh: How utterly stupid, one word that is defined as temporal and eternal. That is simply no definition of the word at all. And when it's interpretation is based upon ones biased pretext, the context is really of secondary value. So, it is "eternal" when dealing with ECT verses, and an "age" when it is obviously ignorance to say "eternity". So, like I said, it ends up being 'no definition at all' when dealing with 'time' IMO. Hence the timeless scholarly works like YLT, Rotherham's, Concordant Literal..etc. etc. All 'works' which no one here has ever even attempted to prove, as having 'bad scholars' OR an interpretation based upon 'doctrinal bias'. As for me, I'll gladly take my chances on judgment day for believing God had a better plan than the one we believe 'the church' morphed into. A plan which makes 'our saving God' is bigger and more ruthless unforgiving despot than the world has ever credited with giving birth to.

EDIT; I just remembered. Someone did try to say the CLT translation biased the author to believe in UR/Uni-. It was a 'comment' I thought a bit strange. A man sets out to write a 'more correct' translation, and in his endeavors to do so, ends up changing his mind on such a huge doctrine as ECT. :idea:
Indeed you are correct, however you, me and a few others are in the distinct minority here as confirmation bias is a widespread disease among the sheep. The sheep blindingly accept what they were taught without critically questioning and studying for themselves. The shepherds who teach are just as blinded resulting in the blind leading the blind. The stated purpose of the atonement in Col 1:19-20 is clearly stated as: "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
Since God's stated purpose is to reconcile all to himself, it is impossible to hold to the view of eternal torment in the lake of fire as the souls who spend "eternity" there in torment are never reconciled to God. That should be a red flag to those who hold to eternal condemnation and annihilationism but apparently this contradiction escapes them. In fact, according to their view, for the great majority of humankind the Good News is in reality, the Bad News.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClementofA
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You are joking, right? On what do you base your assumption that Ramelli has delved into the subject so much? Have you even read her CV? She is the generalist.
Prof. Ilaria Ramelli, FRHistS, earned two MAs (Classics with Specialisation in Early Christianity and Philosophy with Specialisation in History), a PhD (Classics and Early Christianity), and a postdoctorate (Late Antiquity and Religion), as well as two Habilitations to Full Professor (History of Philosophy and Ancient Greek). In the last eighteen years she has been, among else, Professor of History of the Roman Christian Near East, and Fellow in Ancient Philosophy, with focus on classical and Patristic philosophy and early Christianity (Catholic University, Milan, 2003–present), as well as Senior Research Fellow in Ancient and Patristic Philosophy (Durham University).
https://www.history.ac.uk/ehsoc/about/ilaria-ramelli
Cutting and pasting without much thought appears to be your specialty Der Alter. I suggest you do more research. If you prefer to take your Ferrari to the Ford mechanic, that is certainly your prerogative.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Cutting and pasting without much thought appears to be your specialty Der Alter. I suggest you do more research. If you prefer to take your Ferrari to the Ford mechanic, that is certainly your prerogative.
Then please educate me if you think you can? How exactly is my citation of Ilaria Ramelli's CV "Cutting and pasting without much thought" as you accused me? I'm anxious to see what kind of tap dancing you are going to do when, not if, you can't back it up.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The original Greek Acts of the council are lost, but there is extant a very old Latin version, probably contemporary and made for the use of Vigilius, certainly quoted by his successor Pelagius I. The Baluze edition is reprinted in Mansi, "Coll. Conc.", IX, 163 sqq. In the next General Council of Constantinople (680) it was found that the original Acts of the Fifth Council had been tampered with (Hefele, op. cit., II, 855-58) in favour of Monothelitism; nor is it certain that in their present shape we have them in their original completeness (ibid., pp. 859-60). This has a bearing on the much disputed question concerning the condemnation of Origenism at this council. Hefele, moved by the antiquity and persistency of the reports of Origen's condemnation, maintains (p. 861) with Cardinal Noris, that in it Origen was condemned, but only en passant, and that his name in the eleventh anathema is not an interpolation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
Pray tell if Origen's teaching was so heretical, why wasn't he condemned for it in his day and time? Why do we have to wait some 3 centuries later to find out he taught wrongly? The fact that the Emperor Justinian resorted to demanding that the bishops had to meet to execute his own agenda is also quite telling. Or do you suppose that such councils were free from any political influence according to the whims of the reigning emperor? You can put your trust in dogma stemming from such councils if you wish. I certainly don't choose to do so.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd21.html
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
<OT>Indeed you are correct, however you, me and a few others are in the distinct minority here as confirmation bias is a widespread disease among the sheep. The sheep blindingly accept what they were taught without critically questioning and studying for themselves. The shepherds who teach are just as blinded resulting in the blind leading the blind. The stated purpose of the atonement in Col 1:19-20 is clearly stated as: "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
Since God's stated purpose is to reconcile all to himself, it is impossible to hold to the view of eternal torment in the lake of fire as the souls who spend "eternity" there in torment are never reconciled to God. That should be a red flag to those who hold to eternal condemnation and annihilationism but apparently this contradiction escapes them. In fact, according to their view, for the great majority of humankind the Good News is in reality, the Bad News
.<end>
Let us add a little context to your out-of-context proof text. Apparently you would have us believe that Paul is saying God is going to save all things, i.e. all mankind, no matter what, saint or sinner, they will all be saved whether they repent or not. But while you were cutting and pasting this passage you failed to notice Paul stated a condition.
Colossians 1:19-23
(19) 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.
Jesus "has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." If those who have already been reconciled to God have to continue in their faith and do not move from the hope in the gospel to continue to be reconciled, what do the unrepentant have to do and when do they have do it?

 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then please educate me if you think you can? How exactly is my citation of Ilaria Ramelli's CV "Cutting and pasting without much thought" as you accused me? I'm anxious to see what kind of tap dancing you are going to do when, not if, you can't back it up.
Tell me Der Alter, are you aware if any of the authors of the BDAG which you so highly esteem have delved into the subject of apokotastasis as much as Ramelli has? Anyone can cut/paste another's academic qualifications and achievements and leave it at that which is exactly what you have done. That in itself doesn't necessarily say much at all. Most patristic scholars specialize in specific writers or periods, but Ramelli covers the entire patristic corpus, including Syriac authors. Ramelli spent 15 years of research in order to write her tome "The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena." I am not aware of any such academic endeavor that comes even close to what she's done. One may disagree with her conclusions but the scope of depth of her study is undeniable. So, if you want to keep using your Ford mechanic, by all means go for it.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
<OT>Indeed you are correct, however you, me and a few others are in the distinct minority here as confirmation bias is a widespread disease among the sheep. The sheep blindingly accept what they were taught without critically questioning and studying for themselves. The shepherds who teach are just as blinded resulting in the blind leading the blind. The stated purpose of the atonement in Col 1:19-20 is clearly stated as: "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
Since God's stated purpose is to reconcile all to himself, it is impossible to hold to the view of eternal torment in the lake of fire as the souls who spend "eternity" there in torment are never reconciled to God. That should be a red flag to those who hold to eternal condemnation and annihilationism but apparently this contradiction escapes them. In fact, according to their view, for the great majority of humankind the Good News is in reality, the Bad News
.<end>
Let us add a little context to your out-of-context proof text. Apparently you would have us believe that Paul is saying God is going to save all things, i.e. all mankind, no matter what, saint or sinner, they will all be saved whether they repent or not. But while you were cutting and pasting this passage you failed to notice Paul stated a condition.
Colossians 1:19-23
(19) 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.
Jesus "has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." If those who have already been reconciled to God have to continue in their faith and do not move from the hope in the gospel to continue to be reconciled, what do the unrepentant have to do and when do they have do it?
Indeed, believers are reconciled and remain reconciled IF (a condition) they continue in their faith. That is a given. However, did you not even notice that the stated purpose of God is to RECONCILE ALL THINGS TO HIMSELF. How is it then that the doomed sinners in the lake of fire are reconciled to God when they remain forever unreconciled to God and are tormented for it in hell/LOF? Inquiring minds want to know Der Alter.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pray tell if Origen's teaching was so heretical, why wasn't he condemned for it in his day and time? Why do we have to wait some 3 centuries later to find out he taught wrongly? The fact that the Emperor Justinian resorted to demanding that the bishops had to meet to execute his own agenda is also quite telling. Or do you suppose that such councils were free from any political influence according to the whims of the reigning emperor? You can put your trust in dogma stemming from such councils if you wish. I certainly don't choose to do so.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd21.html
Origen like many church fathers was a mixed bag of varying beliefs. In condemning some of his teachings they were not condemning the man. I think Arius was the only one with that honor.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If those who have already been reconciled to God have to continue in their faith and do not move from the hope in the gospel to continue to be reconciled, what do the unrepentant have to do and when do they have do it?
That brings up an interesting point. God throughout human history dealt with mankind through covenants. Would there not be another covenant needed for those who refused or broke the Covenant in Christ’s blood?

Something to look at.
 
Upvote 0