Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Ceallaigh]

They didn't pass muster for the canon. Maybe that's all we need to know? - lol

Both sides have appealed to ECF writings to illustrate what the early church taught. That's always been a substantial chunk of the argument.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Saying "God must" is a pretty tall statement, we do not know what God must do.

That depends on how it's being used. Must can be used to draw a conclusion rather than it being an ultimatum. Like Christ must have been in agony up on the cross.

 

[misput]

It's simple logic: If God intends to become All in all, and He has stated that He will be, then He must refrain from subjecting people to "hell" or annihilation. He describes Himself as a Refiner of Men, but that does not mean that He uses literal fire, the destructive kind. When we do see Godfire, whether at the Burning Bush or on the Day of Pentecost, it is not destructive. At the most, it burns away our dross, tares, chaff, wood, hay and stubble. God also describes Himself as Soap, and the gentleness of soap cannot be misinterpreted.

Maybe so, maybe no, good post.

 

[misput]

That's depends on how it's being used. Must can be used to draw a conclusion rather than it being an ultimatum. Like Christ must have been in agony up on the cross.

Good point.

 

[Saint Steven]

Both sides have appealed to ECF writings to illustrate what the early church taught. That's always been a substantial chunk of the argument.

True.
And as you indicated, the writings of the ECFs has never had the word-for-word analysis that the Bible has. Treated more as historical references.

That the roots of UR are found in the ECFs is very significant. Not some modern doctrine cooked up by bleeding-heart liberals, or progressives. Some historical weight behind it.

 

[Fervent]

True.
And as you indicated, the writings of the ECFs has never had the word-for-word analysis that the Bible has. Treated more as historical references.

That the roots of UR are found in the ECFs is very significant. Not some modern doctrine cooked up by bleeding-heart liberals, or progressives. Some historical weight behind it.

Not really, most of the ECF citations used by universalism proponents are cherry-picked and don't actually say what they are attempted to present. Of the ECF only one comes close to a modern universalist position, and the works that are purported to be his that support such a notion aren't entirely clear to have been penned by him. And those works were anathematized by the early church, with the supposed author himself being posthumously declared heretical. Reading the works as a whole the consensus of the church has basically universally been ECT, though it was generally framed in the larger context of redemption as opposed to the post-Inferno posturing that sets the torment of hell as purely punitive.

 

[Lazarus Short]

...as a whole the consensus of the church has basically universally been ECT, though it was generally framed in the larger context of redemption as opposed to the post-Inferno posturing that sets the torment of hell as purely punitive.

So, theology was influenced by a work of fiction?

 

[Saint Steven]

Reading the works as a whole the consensus of the church has basically universally been ECT...

Oh my; Did you really write that? (seems so)

 

[Fervent]

Oh my; Did you really write that? (seems so)

Yes. Because it was essentially unchallenged until the 18th century.

So, theology was influenced by a work of fiction?

More that the theology of the day was captured in contemporary poetry and the Inferno is a useful marker.

 

[Lazarus Short]

More that the theology of the day was captured in contemporary poetry and the Inferno is a useful marker.

"Useful marker"? I have found that the main props of ECT are fiction and bad translation.

 

[Fervent]

"Useful marker"? I have found that the main props of ECT are fiction and bad translation.

Oh, you're a language expert?

 

[Lazarus Short]

Oh, you're a language expert?

I don't need to be a language expert to see that the works of Dante, Milton, Mary K. Baxter and many others are fiction. I also don't need to be a language expert to see bad translation, having the useful tools of the Bible's own marginal notes, access to interlinear versions, Strong's, Young's and the OED.

 

[prophecy_uk]

Do you guys realize, when it suits you, you speak something of what is in the bible, and then most of the time discuss something else, somebody else's ideas, writings, yet you ought to realize right now, that what the Father commanded, that is what the Son spoke, and that the commandment of the Father is life. Even the words of God are Spirit and life.


It is like people coming in and out of consciousness, you look for a moment at what can heal you, which are the words of life, then right away turn away from them to what destroys, satans word who is the god of this world, and you stick like glue to the wide path, because you just don't care.


Look at what was just said above me, how we do not need to be experts to know what is not right.


But does Lazarus short question other experts, who say they can give better understanding to the scriptures, or commends them as useful tools?


Satan is not as an angel of light for nothing, I will repeat for the very last time, what you put you trust in is your soul kept or lost, and why will you die ?

Then who comes to us, is the one we put our trust in ( the Lord or satan) and the ones of satan can trust anyone, they believe in deception, but the ones of God believe in taking no such chances, they trust in God only, no other words or persons at all.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Do you guys realize, when it suits you, you speak something of what is in the bible, and then most of the time discuss something else, somebody else's ideas, writings, yet you ought to realize right now, that what the Father commanded, that is what the Son spoke, and that the commandment of the Father is life. Even the words of God are Spirit and life.


It is like people coming in and out of consciousness, you look for a moment at what can heal you, which are the words of life, then right away turn away from them to what destroys, satans word who is the god of this world, and you stick like glue to the wide path, because you just don't care.


Look at what was just said above me, how we do not need to be experts to know what is not right.


But does Lazarus short question other experts, who say they can give better understanding to the scriptures, or commends them as useful tools?


Satan is not as an angel of light for nothing, I will repeat for the very last time, what you put you trust in is your soul kept or lost, and why will you die ?

Then who comes to us, is the one we put our trust in ( the Lord or satan) and the ones of satan can trust anyone, they believe in deception, but the ones of God believe in taking no such chances, they trust in God only, no other words or persons at all.

In other words, don't listen to what you have to say.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot mr or ms prophet.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Not really, most of the ECF citations used by universalism proponents are cherry-picked and don't actually say what they are attempted to present. Of the ECF only one comes close to a modern universalist position, and the works that are purported to be his that support such a notion aren't entirely clear to have been penned by him. And those works were anathematized by the early church, with the supposed author himself being posthumously declared heretical. Reading the works as a whole the consensus of the church has basically universally been ECT, though it was generally framed in the larger context of redemption as opposed to the post-Inferno posturing that sets the torment of hell as purely punitive.

Regarding the Second Council of Constantinople to which you refer:

“Apokatastasis has been dogmatically defined by the Church as heresy—see canon 1 … case closed.” Over the past two centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were ever officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Not only does Justinian not mention the Origenist debate in his letter that was read to the bishops at the formal opening of the council, but the acts of the council, as preserved in the Latin translation (the original Greek text having been lost), neither cite the fifteen anathemas nor record any discussion of them. Hence when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation: “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”

Fr Aidan Kimel

 

[Ceallaigh]

Yes. Because it was essentially unchallenged until the 18th century.


More that the theology of the day was captured in contemporary poetry and the Inferno is a useful marker.

Actually it's called the Devine Comedy.

 

[prophecy_uk]

Regarding the Second Council of Constantinople to which you refer:

“Apokatastasis has been dogmatically defined by the Church as heresy—see canon 1 … case closed.” Over the past two centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were ever officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Not only does Justinian not mention the Origenist debate in his letter that was read to the bishops at the formal opening of the council, but the acts of the council, as preserved in the Latin translation (the original Greek text having been lost), neither cite the fifteen anathemas nor record any discussion of them. Hence when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation: “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”

Fr Aidan Kimel

Just reminding us against your words, and comparing the words of Christ


John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[Saint Steven]

Do you guys realize, when it suits you, you speak something of what is in the bible, and then most of the time discuss something else, somebody else's ideas, writings...

The Bible is a Damnationist text. All we have to work with is what fell through the cracks. That which the translation scribes preserved and the editors missed.

Our best defense is to challenge you with the horrible things you are accusing God of. We were all brainwashed to believe in a caricature of an angry volcano god. We have rejected that image. We see a loving heavenly Father, not a gangster godfather making us "an offer we can't refuse." Believe or burn.

Did Jesus die to save us from God?

 

[Hmm]

Regarding the Second Council of Constantinople to which you refer:

“Apokatastasis has been dogmatically defined by the Church as heresy—see canon 1 … case closed.” Over the past two centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were ever officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Not only does Justinian not mention the Origenist debate in his letter that was read to the bishops at the formal opening of the council, but the acts of the council, as preserved in the Latin translation (the original Greek text having been lost), neither cite the fifteen anathemas nor record any discussion of them. Hence when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation: “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”

Fr Aidan Kimel

But we can't let facts get in the way of a good slogan. It's HERESY!

 

[prophecy_uk]

The Bible is a Damnationist text. All we have to work with is what fell through the cracks. That which the translation scribes preserved and the editors missed.

Our best defense is to challenge you with the horrible things you are accusing God of. We were all brainwashed to believe in a caricature of an angry volcano god. We have rejected that image. We see a loving heavenly Father, not a gangster godfather making us "an offer we can't refuse." Believe or burn.

Did Jesus die to save us from God?

The bible is the revelation of man versus God, in the bible we see man got his own death, and we see Jesus overcome that for us with obedience..


Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.



You can reject what you like, but the flood shows the judgement of God, so does the exile of the Jews from Israel, and the return of the Jews to Israel shows God not forgetting them, and to restore Gods Holy name the people of Israel profaned among the nations , all as told and as done( false speakers deny Gods fulfilled words and choose their invented unproven emptiness instead)

..

Ezekiel 36:22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.
23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.


2 Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.



You are testified about, in Gods damning word, if you speak with me I will reveal every word of yours, as I do to everybody. But if I don't offend you, speak to me as much as you will, to see what I know.