The True Church? I'm Disillusioned.

[TheLostCoin]

Please offer verification for this in regards to both the excommunication and the reason he was excommunicated. Origen had some very odd beliefs regarding the pre-existence of the soul, and I do believe it was these strange ideas which brought him condemnation.

People have already offered verification, it's just that you refuse to acknowledge it.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council explicitly says that the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned Origen, and Origen is a heretic.

Causa finita est.

 

[TheLostCoin]

This exact topic was on another thread, and I posted this:

"The real question is what makes David Bentley Hart any better than Fr. Feeney?

Fr. Feeney was a Catholic priest who believed that anybody who did not receive a water baptism was going to burn in hell forever, and if you would have been saved, God would have provided you the means to receive the water.

Ignoring the whole corpus of Catholic tradition which explicitly stated the opposite - that it was possible to be saved without a water baptism - especially given the fact that some Saints have been canonized being Catechumens who were martyred - he paraded this way to his death, and any time he was questioned, he just assumed the worst in people and used appeals to emotions and juvenile ad-hominem attacks to justify himself. For instance, he would believe that anyone who didn't think likewise was just a "compromiser" who "didn't care about spreading the Gospel" and that those who opposed him were "Modernists."

David Bentley Hart is no different. He's just some dude who questions the whole of Orthodox Tradition against the countless testimonies of Saints, Scriptures, and Liturgical readings which do explicate the existence of an eternal hell, and whenever he attacks someone, he assumes their worst intentions as "a child who wants people to burn in hell."

He'll be remembered like Fr. Feeney, as just some rebel pseudo-theologian that nobody remembers, except petulant immaturity for those who do remember."

 

[BNR32FAN]

exactly. hoping that all will be saved and praying for it is something we can/should do.

however, to say that we know all will be saved is, according to St Paisios, a lie of the devil.

I think the biggest danger of it is that it gives people a potentially false sense of security that they will ultimately receive eternal life no matter if they accept Christ and honor God or not. This could very well be a deception much like when satan deceived Eve when he said to her “surely you will not die”. Universalism sounds very similar to this statement.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think the biggest danger of it is that it gives people a potentially false sense of security that they will ultimately receive eternal life no matter if they accept Christ and honor God or not. This could very well be a deception much like when satan deceived Eve when he said to her “surely you will not die”. Universalism sounds very similar to this statement.

yep, it was condemned as a heresy for that reason. just because an Orthodox saint says something, that doesn't make it optional. St Irenaues of Lyons insists that Christ was over 50 when He died, and yet we know that this wasn't the case. the consensus says otherwise.

 

[Light of the East]

This exact topic was on another thread, and I posted this:

"The real question is what makes David Bentley Hart any better than Fr. Feeney?

Fr. Feeney was a Catholic priest who believed that anybody who did not receive a water baptism was going to burn in hell forever, and if you would have been saved, God would have provided you the means to receive the water.

Ignoring the whole corpus of Catholic tradition which explicitly stated the opposite - that it was possible to be saved without a water baptism - especially given the fact that some Saints have been canonized being Catechumens who were martyred - he paraded this way to his death, and any time he was questioned, he just assumed the worst in people and used appeals to emotions and juvenile ad-hominem attacks to justify himself. For instance, he would believe that anyone who didn't think likewise was just a "compromiser" who "didn't care about spreading the Gospel" and that those who opposed him were "Modernists."

David Bentley Hart is no different. He's just some dude who questions the whole of Orthodox Tradition against the countless testimonies of Saints, Scriptures, and Liturgical readings which do explicate the existence of an eternal hell, and whenever he attacks someone, he assumes their worst intentions as "a child who wants people to burn in hell."

He'll be remembered like Fr. Feeney, as just some rebel pseudo-theologian that nobody remembers, except petulant immaturity for those who do remember."

Have you actually read his book, or are you standing on the shoulders of others who have criticized him without making your own judgment regarding the book?

And if you think he is wrong, then write a paper and answer his objections. Anyone can say the book is "garbage." I have yet to see any sort of substantive answers to the philsophical questions and objections that DBH brings forth in his work.

 

[Light of the East]

I think the biggest danger of it is that it gives people a potentially false sense of security that they will ultimately receive eternal life no matter if they accept Christ and honor God or not. This could very well be a deception much like when satan deceived Eve when he said to her “surely you will not die”. Universalism sounds very similar to this statement.

I am actually going to agree with this, and further state that DBH did the Christian faith a tremendous disservice in giving an interview to the NY Times in which he laid out rather clearly the idea of Universal Salvation without attaching a most severe warning to it that there is a hell (God's love), if you do evil you will suffer there, it will be dreadfully painful, and you will regret your life's choices one second after arriving there. Having not said any of this, his interview did exactly what you state in your post - that is, give people the idea that since all will be saved, therefore, how I live my life is not important at all.

The Early Fathers who taught Apokatastasis kept it among themselves, not sharing this with the converts who came into the Church. Only after a man or woman was well-seasoned in the faith and in love with Christ did they bring up the subject, and then only to those whom they sensed could receive it without spiritual disaster.

And even though I believe in Apokatastasis, I have no sense of security. If anything, I expect a good spanking at my Father's hand, along with a protracted period of cleansing for the many failures and sins which still beset me.

But.....you are right in this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Have you actually read his book, or are you standing on the shoulders of others who have criticized him without making your own judgment regarding the book?

And if you think he is wrong, then write a paper and answer his objections. Anyone can say the book is "garbage." I have yet to see any sort of substantive answers to the philsophical questions and objections that DBH brings forth in his work.

that's the problem. a lot of us have on a lot of other threads. you just don't listen to anyone on here. you made the demands for citations and evidence in the past, both have been given, and then you come back here only citing Hart as if we have not been through this before.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am actually going to agree with this, and further state that DBH did the Christian faith a tremendous disservice in giving an interview to the NY Times in which he laid out rather clearly the idea of Universal Salvation without attaching a most severe warning to it that there is a hell (God's love), if you do evil you will suffer there, it will be dreadfully painful, and you will regret your life's choices one second after arriving there. Having not said any of this, his interview did exactly what you state in your post - that is, give people the idea that since all will be saved, therefore, how I live my life is not important at all.

The Early Fathers who taught Apokatastasis kept it among themselves, not sharing this with the converts who came into the Church. Only after a man or woman was well-seasoned in the faith and in love with Christ did they bring up the subject, and then only to those whom they sensed could receive it without spiritual disaster.

And even though I believe in Apokatastasis, I have no sense of security. If anything, I expect a good spanking at my Father's hand, along with a protracted period of cleansing for the many failures and sins which still beset me.

But.....you are right in this.

what evidence is there that this was only revealed when one is seasoned as a Christian?

and again, we believe in apokatastasis, just not like you do.

 

[Light of the East]

that's the problem. a lot of us have on a lot of other threads. you just don't listen to anyone on here. you made the demands for citations and evidence in the past, both have been given, and then you come back here only citing Hart as if we have not been through this before.

The only "citation" I keep getting, over and over and over, is a reference to Constantinople II. I have seen some other Early Fathers quoted who accepted the idea of eternal conscious torment, but remember, at the time, that view was one of three views which were all taught in the Church - annihilation, ECT, and Apokatastasis. I find it most instructive that for 500 years, no council was called to address this issue, no alarm was sounded, and as Augustine stated, there were "many" who were teaching Apokatastasis. He referred to them as the "tender-hearted" (and not in a kind way either).

Thus, if there are three options within the Early Church and the Early Fathers regarding our eschatological end, by far Apokatastasis makes the most sense to me from the standpoint of God's character as revealed in Scripture, the proper interpretation of the Greek, and the philsophical ruminations which DBH has put in his book that as of yet, no one has sufficiently answered. And since there are two options which were never condemned (BTW - why wasn't annihilation ever condemned if only ETC is orthodox eschatology?) then I have my choice.

I find it stunning how Augustine's warped anthropological view of mankind, i.e, that we are a "damned mass" deserving of eternal torment, and that in creatio ex nihlo, God created mankind with the full intention of damning a certain number of them, has taken over the Church, especially in the West. And there wasn't even a council called to question these theological novums.

I read somewhere that when Augustine's writings finally made it to Constantinople, the bishops there were greatly troubled at some of the things he wrote. As I am.

You cannot avoid this reality: (which Hart addresses in his book and of which there has been no cogent response at all)

If God is omniscient, then creating mankind, knowing that a multitude would fall into irremedial sin and thus be damned forever, means that this was (and is) His will, for He went ahead and did it anyway, fully knowing the outcome. I.E. the Calvinists are right, God creates some for nothing more than the display of His power and glory in damning those who oppose Him.

Is THAT really the character of the God of whom St. John said "is love?"

I think not.

 

[Light of the East]

what evidence is there that this was only revealed when one is seasoned as a Christian?

and again, we believe in apokatastasis, just not like you do.

I know you do, and that is one of the beauties of Orthodoxy which drew me towards it and away from the always-condemning Western ideas of God. But for some reason, while you are willing to admit that God has saved all (Romans 5: 12-18) and bound the strong man (Satan) so as to plunder his house of it's ill-gotten and wrongly held goods (the souls of men), you just can't bring yourself to see Him going all the way in His love, power, and ability to bring even the most stubborn of sinners to repentance and thus fulfill the complete restoration of all things.

Somehow you find man's "free-will" (another misnomer) more potent, authoritative, and final than the all-wise, all-loving Father's ability to overcome it. It's somehow the rock that is so big that God cannot lift it.

 

[Light of the East]

what evidence is there that this was only revealed when one is seasoned as a Christian?

I would have to go back and find the quote. It was in an epistle written from one Early Father to another in which he mentioned "things which we do not share with the uninitiated" or something to that effect.

Still looking. Found this:

At this point, it should be noted that many in the early Church who were Universalist cautioned others to be careful whom they told about Universalism, as it might cause some of the weaker ones to sin. This has always been a criticism of Universalism by those who think that people will sin with abandon if there is no threat of eternal punishment. In fact, modern psychology has affirmed that love is a much more powerful motivator than fear, and knowing that God loves each and every person on the planet as much as God loves you does not promote delinquency. Conversely, it is Christian exclusivity that leads to the marginalization of other human beings and the thinking that war and cruelty to the "other" are justified since they're going to Hell anyway! This kind of twisted thinking led to the persecution of the pagans, the witch hunts, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust.

Will keep searching for something more succinct, as I doubt you will accept this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The only "citation" I keep getting, over and over and over, is a reference to Constantinople II. I have seen some other Early Fathers quoted who accepted the idea of eternal conscious torment, but remember, at the time, that view was one of three views which were all taught in the Church - annihilation, ECT, and Apokatastasis. I find it most instructive that for 500 years, no council was called to address this issue, no alarm was sounded, and as Augustine stated, there were "many" who were teaching Apokatastasis. He referred to them as the "tender-hearted" (and not in a kind way either).

Thus, if there are three options within the Early Church and the Early Fathers regarding our eschatological end, by far Apokatastasis makes the most sense to me from the standpoint of God's character as revealed in Scripture, the proper interpretation of the Greek, and the philsophical ruminations which DBH has put in his book that as of yet, no one has sufficiently answered. And since there are two options which were never condemned (BTW - why wasn't annihilation ever condemned if only ETC is orthodox eschatology?) then I have my choice.

I find it stunning how Augustine's warped anthropological view of mankind, i.e, that we are a "damned mass" deserving of eternal torment, and that in creatio ex nihlo, God created mankind with the full intention of damning a certain number of them, has taken over the Church, especially in the West. And there wasn't even a council called to question these theological novums.

I read somewhere that when Augustine's writings finally made it to Constantinople, the bishops there were greatly troubled at some of the things he wrote. As I am.

You cannot avoid this reality: (which Hart addresses in his book and of which there has been no cogent response at all)

If God is omniscient, then creating mankind, knowing that a multitude would fall into irremedial sin and thus be damned forever, means that this was (and is) His will, for He went ahead and did it anyway, fully knowing the outcome. I.E. the Calvinists are right, God creates some for nothing more than the display of His power and glory in damning those who oppose Him.

Is THAT really the character of the God of whom St. John said "is love?"

I think not.

and again, you and Hart erroneously define love. you are defining it in a modern, philosophical way, which is not a theological one. so yes, that is love, you just still don't know what it means.

also, there were alarms sounded. St Leo of Rome actually points out in one of his letters that Nestorians follow the errors of Origen. plus, I and others have mentioned in this and other threads Fathers long before the 5th Council who condemned Origen.

and, again, this theology of eternal damnation isn't from St Augustine.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I know you do, and that is one of the beauties of Orthodoxy which drew me towards it and away from the always-condemning Western ideas of God. But for some reason, while you are willing to admit that God has saved all (Romans 5: 12-18) and bound the strong man (Satan) so as to plunder his house of it's ill-gotten and wrongly held goods (the souls of men), you just can't bring yourself to see Him going all the way in His love, power, and ability to bring even the most stubborn of sinners to repentance and thus fulfill the complete restoration of all things.

Somehow you find man's "free-will" (another misnomer) more potent, authoritative, and final than the all-wise, all-loving Father's ability to overcome it. It's somehow the rock that is so big that God cannot lift it.

actually you're incorrect, and it just shows that are still not defining love as the Orthodox do.

the question isn't whether or not God can overcome our will. that's the wrong question to ask.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would have to go back and find the quote. It was in an epistle written from one Early Father to another in which he mentioned "things which we do not share with the uninitiated" or something to that effect.

Still looking. Found this:

At this point, it should be noted that many in the early Church who were Universalist cautioned others to be careful whom they told about Universalism, as it might cause some of the weaker ones to sin. This has always been a criticism of Universalism by those who think that people will sin with abandon if there is no threat of eternal punishment. In fact, modern psychology has affirmed that love is a much more powerful motivator than fear, and knowing that God loves each and every person on the planet as much as God loves you does not promote delinquency. Conversely, it is Christian exclusivity that leads to the marginalization of other human beings and the thinking that war and cruelty to the "other" are justified since they're going to Hell anyway! This kind of twisted thinking led to the persecution of the pagans, the witch hunts, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust.

Will keep searching for something more succinct, as I doubt you will accept this.

probably not, because for every one Father you claim is for universalism, I could probably find more who aren't for it or in the same Father that implies they aren't as for it as you say, plus I have the 5th Council, the hymns, the prayers, modern theologians, and even some canons. the consensus is not on your side.

but you'd have something more than DBH at least.

and where is that quote from?

 

[TheLostCoin]

The only "citation" I keep getting, over and over and over, is a reference to Constantinople II. I have seen some other Early Fathers quoted who accepted the idea of eternal conscious torment, but remember, at the time, that view was one of three views which were all taught in the Church - annihilation, ECT, and Apokatastasis. I find it most instructive that for 500 years, no council was called to address this issue, no alarm was sounded, and as Augustine stated, there were "many" who were teaching Apokatastasis. He referred to them as the "tender-hearted" (and not in a kind way either).
I think not.

I literally cited the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which is not Constantinople II, an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL which says that Origen is a heretic, in this very thread.

"The only-begotten Son, and Word of God the Father, who was made man in all things like us without sin, Christ our true God, has declared expressly in the words of the Gospel, I am the light of the world; he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. And again, My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. Our most gentle Sovereign, the champion of orthodoxy, and opponent of evil doctrine, being reverentially led by this divinely uttered doctrine of peace, and having convened this our holy and Ecumenical assembly, has united the judgment of the whole Church. Wherefore this our holy and Ecumenical Synod having driven away the impious error which had prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its full assent to the five holy and Ecumenical Synods (that is to say, to that of the 318 holy Fathers who assembled in Nice against the raging Arius; and the next in Constantinople of the 150 God-inspired men against Macedonius the adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first in Ephesus of 200 venerable men convened against Nestorius the Judaizer; and that in Chalcedon of 630 God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus hated of God; and in addition to these, to the last, that is the Fifth holy Synod assembled in this place, against Theodore of Mopsuestia, ORIGEN, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Persian), renewing in all things the ancient decrees of religion, and chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our holy and Ecumenical Synod inspired of God has set its seal to the Creed which was put forth by the 318 Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the 150, which also the other holy synods cordially received and ratified for the taking away of every soul-destroying heresy."


CHURCH FATHERS: Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681)


It does not matter if you, in the most historically revisionist and intellectually dishonest move possible, claim that the 5th Ecumenical Council never condemned Origen (After all, Ecumenical Councils became the law of the Byzantine Empire, and to say that the Emperor would have no authority in the Council is absolutely ridiculous). The Church has interpreted the 5th Ecumenical Council as condemning Origen as a part of dogmatic authority.

 

[TheLostCoin]

I find it stunning how Augustine's warped anthropological view of mankind, i.e, that we are a "damned mass" deserving of eternal torment, and that in creatio ex nihlo, God created mankind with the full intention of damning a certain number of them, has taken over the Church, especially in the West. And there wasn't even a council called to question these theological novums.

Our Lord and Savior Himself said that "broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter by it," and again, says "Depart, you accursed, into the eternal fire, prepared for the devils and his angels," and also says through the Apostle John "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Take it up with Him. Unless you find Our Savior's and the Apostle John's own words warped.

I read somewhere that when Augustine's writings finally made it to Constantinople, the bishops there were greatly troubled at some of the things he wrote. As I am.

Revisionism. The Quintisext Council cites the Council of Carthage as having binding, dogmatic canons, said canons which are found in the Philokalia and have commentary by Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. Further, the Sixth Ecumenical Council calls Augustine a "most illustrious doctor."

Augustine certainly had problems, but he's a Saint. Get over it. Saint Irenaeus thought Jesus was 50 and believed that angels reproduced with humans, and Saint Ambrose believed that invoking Jesus's name alone was sufficient for Baptism.

If God is omniscient, then creating mankind, knowing that a multitude would fall into irremedial sin and thus be damned forever, means that this was (and is) His will, for He went ahead and did it anyway, fully knowing the outcome. I.E. the Calvinists are right, God creates some for nothing more than the display of His power and glory in damning those who oppose Him.

No, that does not follow at all. God does not create people for the display of His power and glory in damning those who oppose Him. Rather, Hell is the experience of the consequences for one consciously choosing to reject the Holy Spirit.

God Himself is goodness. Rejecting Him is embracing evil (which is the absence of goodness), evil leading to suffering.

Hell exists because otherwise, men would not be able to choose freely, with goodness and the absence of goodness being rendered meaningless. If it were the case that everyone would be saved at the end, goodness would, in fact, be rendered meaningless to us, because those who follow God will have to suffer (bearing our Crosses) and those who reject God will suffer as a consequence of their sins. Both groups will suffer and be saved; so why should one choose God?

 

[TheLostCoin]

I know you do, and that is one of the beauties of Orthodoxy which drew me towards it and away from the always-condemning Western ideas of God. But for some reason, while you are willing to admit that God has saved all (Romans 5: 12-18) and bound the strong man (Satan) so as to plunder his house of it's ill-gotten and wrongly held goods (the souls of men), you just can't bring yourself to see Him going all the way in His love, power, and ability to bring even the most stubborn of sinners to repentance and thus fulfill the complete restoration of all things.

Jesus called the Pharisees' father Satan and whipped people in the Temple. That's not to mention the fact that the Orthodox believe that the God of the Old Testament is, in fact, God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I literally cited the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which is not Constantinople II, an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL which says that Origen is a heretic, in this very thread.

"The only-begotten Son, and Word of God the Father, who was made man in all things like us without sin, Christ our true God, has declared expressly in the words of the Gospel, I am the light of the world; he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. And again, My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. Our most gentle Sovereign, the champion of orthodoxy, and opponent of evil doctrine, being reverentially led by this divinely uttered doctrine of peace, and having convened this our holy and Ecumenical assembly, has united the judgment of the whole Church. Wherefore this our holy and Ecumenical Synod having driven away the impious error which had prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its full assent to the five holy and Ecumenical Synods (that is to say, to that of the 318 holy Fathers who assembled in Nice against the raging Arius; and the next in Constantinople of the 150 God-inspired men against Macedonius the adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first in Ephesus of 200 venerable men convened against Nestorius the Judaizer; and that in Chalcedon of 630 God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus hated of God; and in addition to these, to the last, that is the Fifth holy Synod assembled in this place, against Theodore of Mopsuestia, ORIGEN, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Persian), renewing in all things the ancient decrees of religion, and chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our holy and Ecumenical Synod inspired of God has set its seal to the Creed which was put forth by the 318 Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the 150, which also the other holy synods cordially received and ratified for the taking away of every soul-destroying heresy."


CHURCH FATHERS: Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681)


It does not matter if you, in the most historically revisionist and intellectually dishonest move possible, claim that the 5th Ecumenical Council never condemned Origen (After all, Ecumenical Councils became the law of the Byzantine Empire, and to say that the Emperor would have no authority in the Council is absolutely ridiculous). The Church has interpreted the 5th Ecumenical Council as condemning Origen as a part of dogmatic authority.

Quinisext canon I: "We also recognize as inspired by the Holy Spirit the pious voices of the 165 God-bearing Fathers who assembled in this imperial city in the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach them to those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia, AND ORIGEN, and Didymus, and Evagrius, ALL OF WHOM REINTRODUCED FEIGNED GREEK MYTHS..."

Basil of Ancyra's confession from the Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council: "I confess all things pertaining to the Incarnation of one of the Holy Trinity, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, AS THE SAINTS AND THE SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS HAVE HANDED DOWN. And I REJECT AND ANATHEMATIZE EVERY HERETICAL BABBLING, AS THEY ALSO HAVE REJECTED THEM."

from the Synodal decree of the 7th Council: "Moreover, with these we anathematize the fables of Origen..., in accordance with the decision of the Fifth Council held at Constantinople."

 

[Light of the East]

[QUOTE="TheLostCoin

Our Lord and Savior Himself said that "broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter by it,"

To whom did Christ come initially? To the Gentiles or to His people, Israel. Matthew's Gospel is directed towards the Jews. For instance, there is a long genealogy in it which is found nowhere else. That genealogy would mean nothing to Gentiles, but everything to Jews, for it shows Christ as the Son of David, meaning that He was the promised Messiah. There is a very detailed warning, also found in other gospels, regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the end of the Pharisee's rule.

The KJV is not as good a translation as the Young's Literal.

Mat 7:13 'Go ye in through the strait gate, because wide is the gate, and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it;

There was a way that was leading to destruction - the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The Pharisees and many of the Jews were already on that road. Jesus, as Prophet, was warning those who were listening to abandon that way and believe in Him. During the siege of Jerusalem, the Roman armies pulled back from Jerusalem, allowing all who remembered and believed the words of Jesus to flee to Pella and be saved. The rest perished.

and again, says "Depart, you accursed, into the eternal fire, prepared for the devils and his angels,"

Not what it says at all.

Mat 25:41Then shall he say also to those on the left hand, Go ye from me, the cursed, to the fire, the (aionion) age-during, that hath been prepared for the Devil and his messengers;

Latin translators have turned the word aionion (age-lasting) into the word aeternas (eternal) with no warrant to do so whatsoever, other than their not being able to read Greek properly. The word for eternal is adidios. Oh, but I'm not supposed to believe this nor read the Scriptures in their original language, am I? I'm just supposed to believe whatever someone else tells me, even if Greek scholars say they are wrong.

Sure!

and also says through the Apostle John "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

And yet St. Paul states quite clearly that the last enemy to be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
So which is it - does death win or does Christ win?

Take it up with Him. Unless you find Our Savior's and the Apostle John's own words warped.

They have been warped by atrocious interpretations of the Greek in the Scriptures.

Revisionism. The Quintisext Council cites the Council of Carthage as having binding, dogmatic canons, said canons which are found in the Philokalia and have commentary by Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. Further, the Sixth Ecumenical Council calls Augustine a "most illustrious doctor."

Where is the specific condemnation of Apokatastasis in them? I don't see it. I see Origen condemned, but that was for his specific odd ideas about the pre-existence of souls, to which he attached the idea of Apokatastasis. If the council was condeming that, then were are the condemnations of those historical figures in the Church who taught this openly, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa?

Augustine certainly had problems, but he's a Saint.

So in your world, "saint' has the same meaning as "pope," i.e. infallibility. I could say the same thing. St. Gregory of Nyssa is a saint. He taught final restoration of all things. Get over it. So did St. Isaac of Syria. The real question is, given that saints are not infallible is this - which teaching is more in character with God is love?

Get over it. Saint Irenaeus thought Jesus was 50 and believed that angels reproduced with humans, and Saint Ambrose believed that invoking Jesus's name alone was sufficient for Baptism.

No, that does not follow at all. God does not create people for the display of His power and glory in damning those who oppose Him. Rather, Hell is the experience of the consequences for one consciously choosing to reject the Holy Spirit.

Wow. Talk about not even coming close to the point I was making!!! Let me try again. Of what character would be an all-powerful and all-knowing deity who would create sentient beings able to suffer, who would do so with no intention that they ever be free from that suffering? Does the idea of an eternal, unending punishment meet any kind of critera of just punishment, not only in the form of lex talionis (punishment proportional to the offense) but in the idea that all justice has a goal and end - that end being the rehabilitation of the offender. There is an end point somewhere for the one being punished when the full measure has been given out. (Matthew 5: 25-26) Eternal hell has God violating the very command of justice which He gave to us to follow - lex talionis.

God Himself is goodness. Rejecting Him is embracing evil (which is the absence of goodness), evil leading to suffering.

Correct. And Goodness does not intentionally create rational beings who will fall, fail, and suffer sin without having a remedy for that sin. The transcendent, omnipotent and omniscient Deity has freely created a cosmos whose eschatological consummation will be heaven and hell—so traditional theology tells us. He might have created a different cosmos, one in which all rational beings enjoy eternal beatitude (no everlasting damnation); or, if no such cosmoses were available to be actualized (transworld damnation), he might have decided not to create a cosmos at all. Yet here we are. Before us lies the possibility of eternal happiness in Jesus Christ or everlasting misery. Some reading this article will be saved, but some will be damned. Given the divine freedom, the final responsibility for this outcome lies with the Creator himself. God’s responsibility for the suffering of the damned cannot be mitigated by considerations like creaturely freedom (human beings have brought the outcome upon themselves by their voluntary disobedience; human beings have brought the outcome upon themselves by their voluntary refusal to accept God’s love and mercy). God foreknew the eschatological conclusion yet chose to create this specific cosmos regardless.

Hell exists because otherwise, men would not be able to choose freely, with goodness and the absence of goodness being rendered meaningless. If it were the case that everyone would be saved at the end, goodness would, in fact, be rendered meaningless to us, because those who follow God will have to suffer (bearing our Crosses) and those who reject God will suffer as a consequence of their sins. Both groups will suffer and be saved; so why should one choose God?

Do you think I haven't thought this through? Do you think that these ideas have not been a consideration? St. Iranaeus taught that the suffering we have (which is a direct result of sin) is a part of the process of refining souls. We are in a school of learning to become little gods (God became man so that man might become [a] god). An eternal hell of torment is a complete failure of that school.

Why should one choose God? Because that is what we were made for. Because it is our telos. Because there are rewards for the righteous and punishments for the wicked. Because the glory of following Christ will be immensely higher than the lowness of those who rejected Him. There will be rewards and authority in the next life. St. Paul said we are to judge angels, remember? Do you think that unrepentant sinners will have the same authority, glory, and splendor that the saints of Mount Athos will have?

The idea of an eternal hell not only makes the Cross a gigantic failure, it posits the idea that rather than ending sin and death in the final age, God willingly suspends souls in a state of unrelenting sin and rage against Him. If the stated goal of the Cross is the destruction of sin and death, do you not see a gigantic problem with that?

But suppose you tell me in detail how it is an act of love to create sentient beings that you know will fail and suffer forever. And then tell me what does eternal hell actually accomplish. Tell me why eternal hell is not completely meaningless, other than perhaps the idea of God getting revenge, which flies in the face of Him being immutable and passionless (according to theologians I have read).

 

[ArmyMatt]

[QUOTE="TheLostCoin

Our Lord and Savior Himself said that "broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter by it,"

To whom did Christ come initially? To the Gentiles or to His people, Israel. Matthew's Gospel is directed towards the Jews. For instance, there is a long genealogy in it which is found nowhere else. That genealogy would mean nothing to Gentiles, but everything to Jews, for it shows Christ as the Son of David, meaning that He was the promised Messiah. There is a very detailed warning, also found in other gospels, regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the end of the Pharisee's rule.

The KJV is not as good a translation as the Young's Literal.

Mat 7:13 'Go ye in through the strait gate, because wide is the gate, and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it;

There was a way that was leading to destruction - the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The Pharisees and many of the Jews were already on that road. Jesus, as Prophet, was warning those who were listening to abandon that way and believe in Him. During the siege of Jerusalem, the Roman armies pulled back from Jerusalem, allowing all who remembered and believed the words of Jesus to flee to Pella and be saved. The rest perished.

and again, says "Depart, you accursed, into the eternal fire, prepared for the devils and his angels,"

Not what it says at all.

Mat 25:41Then shall he say also to those on the left hand, Go ye from me, the cursed, to the fire, the (aionion) age-during, that hath been prepared for the Devil and his messengers;

Latin translators have turned the word aionion (age-lasting) into the word aeternas (eternal) with no warrant to do so whatsoever, other than their not being able to read Greek properly. The word for eternal is adidios. Oh, but I'm not supposed to believe this nor read the Scriptures in their original language, am I? I'm just supposed to believe whatever someone else tells me, even if Greek scholars say they are wrong.

Sure!

and also says through the Apostle John "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

And yet St. Paul states quite clearly that the last enemy to be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
So which is it - does death win or does Christ win?

Take it up with Him. Unless you find Our Savior's and the Apostle John's own words warped.

They have been warped by atrocious interpretations of the Greek in the Scriptures.

Revisionism. The Quintisext Council cites the Council of Carthage as having binding, dogmatic canons, said canons which are found in the Philokalia and have commentary by Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. Further, the Sixth Ecumenical Council calls Augustine a "most illustrious doctor."

Where is the specific condemnation of Apokatastasis in them? I don't see it. I see Origen condemned, but that was for his specific odd ideas about the pre-existence of souls, to which he attached the idea of Apokatastasis. If the council was condeming that, then were are the condemnations of those historical figures in the Church who taught this openly, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa?

Augustine certainly had problems, but he's a Saint.

So in your world, "saint' has the same meaning as "pope," i.e. infallibility. I could say the same thing. St. Gregory of Nyssa is a saint. He taught final restoration of all things. Get over it. So did St. Isaac of Syria. The real question is, given that saints are not infallible is this - which teaching is more in character with God is love?

Get over it. Saint Irenaeus thought Jesus was 50 and believed that angels reproduced with humans, and Saint Ambrose believed that invoking Jesus's name alone was sufficient for Baptism.

No, that does not follow at all. God does not create people for the display of His power and glory in damning those who oppose Him. Rather, Hell is the experience of the consequences for one consciously choosing to reject the Holy Spirit.

Wow. Talk about not even coming close to the point I was making!!! Let me try again. Of what character would be an all-powerful and all-knowing deity who would create sentient beings able to suffer, who would do so with no intention that they ever be free from that suffering? Does the idea of an eternal, unending punishment meet any kind of critera of just punishment, not only in the form of lex talionis (punishment proportional to the offense) but in the idea that all justice has a goal and end - that end being the rehabilitation of the offender. There is an end point somewhere for the one being punished when the full measure has been given out. (Matthew 5: 25-26) Eternal hell has God violating the very command of justice which He gave to us to follow - lex talionis.

God Himself is goodness. Rejecting Him is embracing evil (which is the absence of goodness), evil leading to suffering.

Correct. And Goodness does not intentionally create rational beings who will fall, fail, and suffer sin without having a remedy for that sin. The transcendent, omnipotent and omniscient Deity has freely created a cosmos whose eschatological consummation will be heaven and hell—so traditional theology tells us. He might have created a different cosmos, one in which all rational beings enjoy eternal beatitude (no everlasting damnation); or, if no such cosmoses were available to be actualized (transworld damnation), he might have decided not to create a cosmos at all. Yet here we are. Before us lies the possibility of eternal happiness in Jesus Christ or everlasting misery. Some reading this article will be saved, but some will be damned. Given the divine freedom, the final responsibility for this outcome lies with the Creator himself. God’s responsibility for the suffering of the damned cannot be mitigated by considerations like creaturely freedom (human beings have brought the outcome upon themselves by their voluntary disobedience; human beings have brought the outcome upon themselves by their voluntary refusal to accept God’s love and mercy). God foreknew the eschatological conclusion yet chose to create this specific cosmos regardless.

Hell exists because otherwise, men would not be able to choose freely, with goodness and the absence of goodness being rendered meaningless. If it were the case that everyone would be saved at the end, goodness would, in fact, be rendered meaningless to us, because those who follow God will have to suffer (bearing our Crosses) and those who reject God will suffer as a consequence of their sins. Both groups will suffer and be saved; so why should one choose God?

Do you think I haven't thought this through? Do you think that these ideas have not been a consideration? St. Iranaeus taught that the suffering we have (which is a direct result of sin) is a part of the process of refining souls. We are in a school of learning to become little gods (God became man so that man might become [a] god). An eternal hell of torment is a complete failure of that school.

Why should one choose God? Because that is what we were made for. Because it is our telos. Because there are rewards for the righteous and punishments for the wicked. Because the glory of following Christ will be immensely higher than the lowness of those who rejected Him. There will be rewards and authority in the next life. St. Paul said we are to judge angels, remember? Do you think that unrepentant sinners will have the same authority, glory, and splendor that the saints of Mount Athos will have?

The idea of an eternal hell not only makes the Cross a gigantic failure, it posits the idea that rather than ending sin and death in the final age, God willingly suspends souls in a state of unrelenting sin and rage against Him. If the stated goal of the Cross is the destruction of sin and death, do you not see a gigantic problem with that?

But suppose you tell me in detail how it is an act of love to create sentient beings that you know will fail and suffer forever. And then tell me what does eternal hell actually accomplish. Tell me why eternal hell is not completely meaningless, other than perhaps the idea of God getting revenge, which flies in the face of Him being immutable and passionless (according to theologians I have read).

a few things.

for one, aionion meaning "age lasting" doesn't help your argument. because the age after the Last Judgment has no end.

two, yes, the last enemy that is destroyed is death. which means that eternal light and life torment those who desire darkness and death.

for three, Origen's understanding of Apokatastasis is condemned in Council 5, anathema IX against Origen. Nyssa also taught in his work on the Resurrection that the blessings of heaven are only for those who prepare for it.

for four, the Church doesn't simply condemn people for erroneous teaching. St Irenaeus had some errors, but he is no less of a saint.

for five, the teaching of apokatastasis as you and DBH define it isn't in line with God's love, because it was condemned.

for six, for the umpteenth millionth time, the punishment is self inflicted. God simply pours out His love on the sinner as He does on the saint.

for seven, that's philosophy, not theology. there is a remedy that is offered to all, but God does not impose on our will. so He doesn't force us to take the remedy.

and lastly, because both the saved and the damned are resurrected, the Cross isn't a failure. the point of the Cross was to lead us to the Resurrection, which will happen for everyone. sin and death are destroyed, so if that is what I desire, their "lack" torments me. and you still don't know what love is.

so no, the fact that you ask the same things and make the same demands whenever this topic is brought up shows that you really aren't thinking this through, at least not seriously. I mean, you actually entertained the idea that the 5th Council might have been a robber council...

these discussions really remind me of when I would speak to Jehovah's Witnesses. it's like when they go home, they forget/ignore any point you made, and bring up the same stuff that was already addressed.