If endless conscious torments were true, is God a monster?

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

David Bentley Hart, an Eastern Orthodox universalist asks:

"First, can the God who either imposes or permits a state of perpetual conscious torment for rational creatures really be not only good, but (as reason and faith alike say he must be) Goodness in itself? And, second, could finite creatures possessed of real freedom (as opposed to a mere voluntarist power of spontaneous movement toward any end whatsoever) actually freely reject God eternally and, by the exercise of that liberty, merit perpetual torment?"

What God Wills and What God Permits - David Bentley Hart

There is no such thing as an "Eastern Orthodox Universalist".

Because The Canons and Decrees of The Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.


Fr. John Whiteford. Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?

NPNF2-14 Emperor Justinian Against Origen.


• The Fifth Ecumenical Council. The Second Council of Constantinople.
(553 A.D.)


• The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen.


9.
"If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (apokatastasij) will take place of demons and of impious men,
Let Him Be Anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions,
or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them."


.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Canons and Decrees of The Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.

Wow.
Did you really write that? (seems so) Infallible?
Weren't they overturned at a later date?
(or disqualified for being invalid in the first place)

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Weren't they overturned at a later date?

No.

You can read all The Canons and Decrees from The Ecumenical Councils Here :

NPNF2-14


.

 

[Saint Steven]

No.

You can read all The Canons and Decrees from The Ecumenical Councils Here :

NPNF2-14


.

I think @Shrewd Manager had a worthwhile position to consider on this. If I remember correctly.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I think @Shrewd Manager had a worthwhile position to consider on this. If I remember correctly.

Hi there Steve, and @Jude1:3Contendforthefaith. I had thought we'd settled this matter on the accord that there was never any Ecumenical condemnation of UR, only some rubbish from 'Mr Return of Roman Law' Emperor Justinian who managed to tack his own anti-Origenist anathema on to the paperwork produced by the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] 5th Council, while Pope Vigilius and many other bishops refused to even attend. Sadly, however, I can't seem to persuade Brother Jude to stop pushing the monstrous fable that UR was condemned. For all his claim to orthodoxy, he sure takes the Romish stance on this issue.

Interesting though, that an essentially anti-Christ fella like Justinian would single out Origen and UR for such special treatment.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

while Pope Vigilius and many other bishops refused to even attend.

Fr. John Whiteford. Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?


"The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 states :

“Having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows.”


And Once Again :

The Canons and Decrees of The Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.


.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Fr. John Whiteford. Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?


"The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 states :

“Having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows.”


And Once Again :

The Canons and Decrees of The Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.


.

You're missing the point Jude. The anathema of Origen re UR were never confirmed, as per the required procedure. He didn't make it to the end zone for a touchdown. The devil can try, but the HS has a superior defence (of course).

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

You're missing the point Jude. The anathema of Origen re UR were never confirmed, as per the required procedure. He didn't make it to the end zone for a touchdown. The devil can try, but the HS has a superior defence (of course).

Apocatastasis - OrthodoxWiki

"The decisions of ecumenical councils have universal authority in the Orthodox Church."



Will Everyone Eventually Be Saved?

Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and There Are Few Who Find It.
• Matthew 7:14

.

 

[Randy777]

LOL -

I suppose one could think of another being a MONSTER, when the other DEMANDS they be accountable and responsible for their OWN choices.

Seriously, WHO wants to be accountable OR responsible for their OWN choices....WHEN it is SO MUCH EASIER to blame another?

In this world...
A man is not responsible for pulling the trigger....it's the guns fault.
A man is not responsible for committing crimes....it's the drugs fault.
A man is not responsible for not feeding his children....it's everyone else's fault for not giving him food.
A man is not responsible for rejecting GOD...
It's Gods fault for not forcing him to believe.

LOL ~ The workings of the Carnal Mind and its conclusions are not news.
But thanks for continually reaffirming how much your carnal mind benefits you, in avoiding responsibility for your own choices.

God Bless,
SBC

Moses blamed the frustration he had in striking the rock on the Israelite's as in they caused him to do it YET God still held him accountable for what he did.

Clearly we are responsible for what we in Gods eyes.

 

[ClementofA]

Apocatastasis - OrthodoxWiki

"The decisions of ecumenical councils have universal authority in the Orthodox Church."

Infallibility of the Church - Wikipedia

"It is true that something remembered by tradition as “Origenism” was condemned by someone in the sixth century, and that Origen was maligned as a heretic in the process; and it is also true that for well more than a millennium both those decisions were associated with the Council of 553 by what was simply accepted as the official record. But, embarrassingly, we now know, and have known for quite some time, that the record was falsified. And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately—if obscurely—bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith."

Saint Origen | David Bentley Hart

Will Everyone Eventually Be Saved?

.

The author of that article states:

"the solid fact of Christian consensus about the eternity of hell is surely significant."

Yet provides no evidence or polls supporting that claim.

In his very next sentence he admits re the same subject:

"...a belief in universalism is becoming popular..."

Later he even admits that "many" reject the endless tortures monstrosity:

"Thus many even in the Church are happy to revise this part of our Tradition..."

Further on he makes additional admissions:

"The somewhat lonely patristic witness of Saint Gregory of Nyssa is being called upon, as well as that of Isaac the Syrian. Some even are suggesting rehabilitating Origen, even in the face of his conciliar condemnation by name in Canon 11 of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and Canon 1 of the “Quinisext” Council."

"Much of the debate centers around the teaching of Saint Paul, who is presented as an apostolic witness for universalism. After all, Paul did teach that “as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22), and that at the end “God shall be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). The problem of course is that Saint Paul also taught that “the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9),..."

I wonder if he has any idea how easily 1 Cor.6:9 is reconciled with universalism.

For what it's worth (quite a bit IMO) the overwhelming majority of Bible believing Christians also don't see it your way, according to the scriptures.

(A.) That's debatable. For example, both the RC & EO allow one to hope for universalism, though many don't just hope but believe it in spite of their church's position. Moreover many more would accept universalism if they weren't entirely ignorant of its positions, or were fully informed of the view. BTW, many others have rejected endless torments in favor of endless annihilation.

(B.) It may have been true through the dark & middle ages when few people had bibles of their own & wouldn't have been able to read them if they did & to speak otherwise would have meant punishment or death. Not a point that is in favor of anti-universalism.

(C.) In the early church, when they could read the Scriptures in their original languages, rather than English language KJV pro Endless Infernalism club mistranslated clones, there were, at times at least, many (or perhaps a majority) who rejected endless punishment:

(1.) "Even Augustine, the champion of eternal torment said in his day, "There are very many (imo quam plurimi, which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures,
do not believe in endless torments" (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29). St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379) in his De Asceticis wrote: "The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end
of punishment to those who are punished." " http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Appendix5.html

"It is in vain, then, that some, indeed very many, make moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not believe it shall be so; not,
indeed, that they directly oppose themselves to Holy Scripture..." Augustine's ENCHIRIDION, Chs. 97-122

The context of the Augustine (c. 354-430 AD) quote in chapters 111 & 112 includes fallen angels & implies their ultimate salvation.

(2.) "St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379) in his De Asceticis wrote: "The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." "(The Ascetic Works
of St. Basil, pp.329-30...Conc. 14 De. fut judic)." Universalism and the Salvation of Satan

"...many people...adhere to the conception of the end of punishment..." (Basil)

(Basil’s short Regulae for his monks, 267 (PG 31,1264,30–1265,47) & by Symeon Metaphrastes, Or. 14 De iudicio 3,551–552. As quoted & cited in Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, p.352).

If there is an end of punishment to those punished, then what is left but universal salvation, even of devils?

(3) John Chrysostom (c. 349-407 A.D.) "There are many men...thinking that hell is...temporary, not eternal..." (Homilies on Second Thessalonians 3 (NPNF 1 13:384)).


(4.) "St. Jerome (c. 342-420 A.D.), the author of the Vulgate Latin Bible...writes: "I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its King, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil
and all rational creatures." http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/churchfathersquotes.htm

Jerome says:

"I know that many people interpret the king of Nineveh as the devil, saying that he, at the end of the world (on the grounds that no rational creature made by God should perish), descending from his pride, would repent, and be restored to his former place." [Commentary on Jonah 3:6-9] https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/46905/Amy_Oh.pdf?sequence=1

Whether or not the reference to Ninevah is a misrepresentation by Jerome against his opponents, such as Origen, is unknown. What is known is that Origen (c. 184-254 AD) based his doctrine of universalism on the Scriptures, his favorite passage being 1 Cor.15:28:

"This final phrase is a clear reference to 1Cor 15:28, Origen’s and Nyssen’s favourite passage in support of the apokatastasis doctrine.34" (page 15)

"The eventual submission of humanity to God is a reference to Paul’s eschatological revelation in 1Cor 15:24–28, which is also a very universalistic passage, concluding with the presence of God as “all in all.” This will be one of the favourite passages of Origen in support of the doctrine of apokatastasis." (page 94)

"Thus, at the end of all aeons, in the eventual apokatastasis, all will come to be, no longer in any aeon, but in God the Trinity, and in turn God will be “all in all.” The meaning of this Pauline sentence (1Cor 15:28, Origen’s favourite passage in defence of apokatastasis) is explained especially in Princ. 3,6,2–3. Here, Origen first deduces the definitive eviction of evil from the presence of God “all in all,” given that it is impossible to admit that God may be found in evil, as I have already pointed out; then, he examines:

" "What is this “all” that God will be “in all”? […] It means that God will be “all” even in every individual creature. And God will be “all” in these creatures in the sense that whatever the rational intellect, freed from any dirtiness of sin and purified from any taint of evil, will be able to perceive, grasp and think, all this will be God […], and so God will be all for this intellect […], because evil will not exist any more: for such intellect, God, untouched by evil, is all. One who is always in the Good and for whom God is all, will no longer wish to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil […] After removing every sense of evil, only he who is the sole good God will become all for the creature returned to a state of soundness and purity […] and not only in few or in many, but in all God will be all, when at last there will be no more death, nor death’s sting, nor evil, most definitely: then God will truly be “all in all.” " " (page 168)

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Yf...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

http://www.isns.us/directory/europe/ramelliilaria.htm

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalist.html

 

[Saint Steven]

"The decisions of ecumenical councils have universal authority in the Orthodox Church."

I'm glad we cleared that up.
What good is claimed infallibility when you are OUTSIDE your jurisdiction?

You can make any claims you want within the four walls of your church.
But they are meaningless out here. MEANINGLESS!!!

 

[Saint Steven]

... But, embarrassingly, we now know, and have known for quite some time, that the record was falsified. And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately—if obscurely—bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith."

Thanks. That deserves repeating.

"... embarrassingly, we now know...
... the record was falsified."

 

[Light of the East]

Let me add my .02 worth to this because I find the constant harping on Constantinople II as being against Apokatastasis to be quite annoying.

Even the Roman Catholic Church is now publically admitting that things are not right with the whole history of this council:


At least, not from the official records we find from a source no less than the Papal Encyclicals Online the following statement:

The council did not debate ecclesiastical discipline nor did it issue disciplinary canons. Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.

This is not me speaking. This is an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church ADMITTING that the anathemas against Origen are not part of the original council. In other words, the thug emperor decided to bully around the Pope, the council, and the bishops and get what he wanted because he didn't like Apokatastasis.

And WHY did he not like it? Well, as has been pointed out by historians, his wet dream was the revival of the Roman Empire. He was a Roman, through and through, and wanted to rule over a revived AND UNITED Roman Empire. That was why he called the council in the first place. Fights and arguments between Monophysites and those who accepted the Fourth Council were detrimental to the political and religious unity he desires to rule over.

Here is Justinian's thought on Apokatastasis:

It will render men slothful, and discourage them from keeping the commandments of God. It will encourage them to depart from the narrow way, leading them by deception into ways that are wide and easy.

Now read between the lines. What he is really saying is that it will make them unafraid of the government, therefore it is necessary to scare the bejeepers out of them to keep them in line.

Weaponizing God

Hitler in Constantinople

“But the 5th Ecumenical Council says….” STOP! NO. IT. DOESN’T!!

Constantinople II

 

[Saint Steven]

... Now read between the lines. What he is really saying is that it will make them unafraid of the government, therefore it is necessary to scare the bejeepers out of them to keep them in line. ...

Right! (thanks for your post)
And this same fear-based system has been passed down through the ages to us through Damnationism. (threat of a forever-burning hell)

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

..... And There Are FEW who find it.

 

[Saint Steven]

..... And There Are FEW who find it.

What are you planning to do with the rest?

 

[ClementofA]

..... And There Are FEW who find it.

Jesus was referring to the time c 30 AD, saying there were few "finding" it, not that any would never be saved:

Matthew 7:13-14 does not refute the eventual salvation of all

 

[Light of the East]

..... And There Are FEW who find it.

There are a few things you are missing in this quote.

Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Note first of all that this appears in the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew is all about the nation of Israel and Christ's coming to it as Messiah. That's why, for instance, that there is a long genealogy in the beginning. These names would mean nothing to Gentiles, but to a Jew, they were part of the royal lineage which pointed to the Messiah up to and through King David.

Jesus deals with warning the Jews over and over again to "be saved" and to "find life." Saved from what? Find what life? I think that Matthew 23 - 25 give us the clear answer. Jesus is warning of the coming destruction of national Israel in AD 70. Those who were trapped in Jerusalem during the siege of Titus and his army, heeded the warning and got out when a break in the war took place. They fled to Pella and were "saved."

Unfortunately, poor scholarship and ridiculous theories (aka the "Rapture of the Church" before the Great Tribulation) has overlooked this and tended to drag these warnings to get saved up into modern times. Roman Catholicism has done the same thing with Matthew 16, taking the keys to the kingdom which were given to Peter and insisting that this made their Latin Church THE Church. The keys to the kingdom were the preaching of the Gospel and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews. to give them this knowledge to the saving of their souls from destruction. Luke 11:52 shows us that the "key" is KNOWLEDGE, and this is what Peter was given to share with the Jews. He was commissioned to unlock the doors to the kingdom for the Jews by his witness to them. Once he was done, we see in Revelation, the key is back in the hands of the One who gave it to Peter.

Few indeed did find the way to life. Over 1 million Jews died in the 67 - 79 civil war with Rome. The number who fled Jerusalem before it was razed to the ground was slight. By repentance and trust in Christ as the Messiah, they found life, while those who died found physical death and chastisement in the next age.

There are many ways to be "saved." Many kinds of salvation. The problem with most folks is that when they see the word "saved" in the Scriptures, they automatically assume that is has to do with eternal life and escaping a place of eternal torment.

But more to the point, this whole thread has gotten way off the subject in the OP. Even if we allow that aionios may, at times, be translated eternal instead of "age-long," the issue still remains that you have to ask of what character would be a God who would create sentient beings, foreknowing that they they would fall into a state of sin, but who would do so as part of His will? You see, nothing is ever done without a telos in mind. Therefore, if eternal torment is true, then the only thing you have to say is that this was God's will from the very beginning. DBH makes this crystal clear in His book. You create to an end, and if the end is that 95% of all human beings wind up in anguish and torment, and that is without any sort of divine remedy, then you have to insist that this was His will. If it was not His will in creation, then it would not take place. It's that simple. Nothing can thwart the will of God. Impossible.

Which means that in the hellist picture of things, God creates mankind with the distinct will that they will most all go to hell forever.

Which makes him monster.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

..... And There Are FEW who find it.

So Brother Jude, will you now do what I have previously requested, and remove the false and misleading words from your footer, to wit:

If Anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary Let Him Be Anathema.
• Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.)

There is no justification to ascribe those words to the Council. Should you feel a burning desire to retain them, at least in good conscience kindly replace the source with a reference to Emperor Justinian.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Right! (thanks for your post)
And this same fear-based system and been passed down through the ages to us through Damnationism. (threat of a forever-burning hell)

'Infernalism' was the term used in another thread by our new friend @agapelove. Stylish alternative, European possibly...

Many modern Christians it seems shy away from the good old medieval infernalism to a more general and 'politically correct' damnationist position whereby unbelievers just drift away into the outer darkness (lost in space), or otherwise are kept away from the presence of God, wailing and gnashing.