How does the idea that most of Gods creation he will have to burn forever bring glory to God?

[Jipsah]

What did God force Paul to do there that was against his will? I'm not saying that God never interacts with man, but where are you getting the idea that God forced Paul to do anything against his will?

Whatever point you're trying to make here has to be extraordinarily strange,

 

[Fervent]

There is debate about what you think happened.
The early church ecumenical councils did not explicitly condemn universal salvation (the belief that all will ultimately be saved) as a heresy in their official canons or decrees. However, the topic is complex, as certain theological positions related to universal salvation, particularly those associated with Origen and his teachings (often labeled "Origenism"), were debated and condemned in later councils.
Here’s a concise overview based on the historical record:

1. No Direct Condemnation in Early Ecumenical Councils:
   • The first seven ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea I in 325, Constantinople I in 381, Ephesus in 431, Chalcedon in 451) primarily focused on Christological and Trinitarian issues, such as defining the nature of Christ and the Trinity, rather than directly addressing universal salvation.
   • Universal salvation as a concept was not a central issue in these councils’ agendas, and their canons do not explicitly mention or condemn it.
2. Origen and the Second Council of Constantinople (553):
   • The Second Council of Constantinople (the fifth ecumenical council) is often cited in discussions of universal salvation because it condemned certain teachings associated with Origen, a 3rd-century theologian who speculated about the possibility of universal reconciliation (apokatastasis).
   • The council’s anathemas (condemnations) targeted specific Origenist doctrines, particularly those held by later followers who exaggerated or distorted Origen’s ideas. The first anathema condemns the idea of a pre-existent soul and related cosmological speculations but does not directly address universal salvation.
   • However, a set of 15 additional anathemas attributed to this council (possibly from a related synod) includes a condemnation of the idea that all will be restored to salvation, including demons and the damned. Scholars debate whether these anathemas were formally part of the ecumenical council or a separate local synod, as they were not universally ratified.
3. Historical Context:
   • Origen’s teachings on apokatastasis were controversial because they suggested that all beings, including Satan and demons, might eventually be reconciled to God. This clashed with emerging orthodox views on eternal punishment, as reflected in texts like Matthew 25:46.
   • While Origen himself was not formally condemned during his lifetime, later interpretations of his ideas (Origenism) were seen as problematic, especially by the 6th century when Justinian and others sought to unify Christian doctrine.
   • The condemnation of Origenist ideas in 553 was more about rejecting speculative cosmology and extreme interpretations than a direct ruling on universal salvation as understood today.
4. Later Developments:
   • The idea of universal salvation remained a minority view in Christian theology but was never universally condemned by an ecumenical council in a way that explicitly anathematized all forms of the belief. Some theologians, like Gregory of Nyssa, also held views sympathetic to universal reconciliation without facing formal condemnation.
   • The Western and Eastern churches developed stronger teachings on eternal punishment over time, particularly in response to later theological debates, but universal salvation was not a primary focus of ecumenical councils.

Conclusion: No early ecumenical council explicitly condemned universal salvation as a standalone doctrine. The closest related condemnation occurred at the Second Council of Constantinople (553), where certain Origenist teachings were anathematized, potentially including extreme forms of universalism. However, the precise scope and authority of these anathemas remain debated among historians and theologians. If you’d like, I can dig deeper into specific council texts or search for additional sources to clarify further!

4s

You should read what you post more carefully. Point 4 under section 2 confirms that the fifth ecumenical council contained anathema against universalism. The "debate" is a recent attempt by UR advocates to re-write history despite the fact that it has long been established that universalism was condemned at the second council of Constantinople.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

You should read what you post more carefully. Point 4 under section 2 confirms that the fifth ecumenical council contained anathema against universalism. The "debate" is a recent attempt by UR advocates to re-write history despite the fact that it has long been established that universalism was condemned at the second council of Constantinople.

I am not Catholic so what they did has no bearing on what I believe, they are the ones who say Mary never sinned and never died, and alot of other things that have no bearing of the truth.

 

[Fervent]

I am not Catholic so what they did has no bearing on what I believe, they are the ones who say Mary never sinned and never died, and alot of other things that have no bearing of the truth.

The ecumenical councils were before the schisms, so your characterization of them as "Catholic" is quite misleading. It's been stated the church anathematized UR, your own source states the church anathematized UR(which your post was attempting to discredit). So your "defense" here is limp-wristedn.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

The ecumenical councils were before the schisms, so your characterization of them as "Catholic" is quite misleading. It's been stated the church anathematized UR, your own source states the church anathematized UR(which your post was attempting to discredit). So your "defense" here is limp-wristedn.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, also known as the Second Council of Constantinople (553 CE), is a complex case when it comes to the condemnation of universal salvation (apokatastasis) and Origen’s teachings, particularly the pre-existence of souls. The council’s primary focus was addressing the controversy surrounding the "Three Chapters" (writings associated with Nestorianism), but it is often associated with condemning certain aspects of Origenism, including universal salvation and the pre-existence of souls. Let’s break it down:

1. Condemnation of Origenism and the Fifteen Anathemas​

The council is traditionally linked to a set of fifteen anathemas attributed to Emperor Justinian, which targeted Origenist teachings. The first anathema is particularly relevant:

"If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."

This anathema explicitly condemns:

• The pre-existence of souls: The idea that souls exist before their union with bodies, a concept associated with Origen’s speculative theology.
• The "monstrous restoration" (apokatastasis): A form of universal salvation tied to the pre-existence of souls, where all souls, including demons, return to a primordial, disembodied spiritual state after a cycle of fall and restoration.

However, scholars debate whether these fifteen anathemas were formally adopted by the Fifth Ecumenical Council or were part of a separate local synod convened by Justinian in 543 CE or early 553 CE. The official acts of the council, as preserved, do not explicitly mention these anathemas or focus on universal salvation. Instead, they primarily address Christological issues related to the Three Chapters.

2. Did the Council Condemn Universal Salvation Broadly?​

The condemnation in the first anathema is not a blanket rejection of all forms of universal salvation but specifically targets a version of apokatastasis linked to the pre-existence of souls and a cyclical, spiritualized restoration. This is significant because not all proponents of universal salvation, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Isaac the Syrian, tied their hope for universal reconciliation to the pre-existence of souls. Their versions of apokatastasis were grounded in God’s infinite love and the transformative power of divine judgment, not Origen’s speculative protology (theory of origins).

• Key Point: The council’s condemnation, if the anathemas are accepted as part of its proceedings, does not appear to reject universal salvation as a general concept but rather a specific Origenist formulation. Scholars like Ilaria Ramelli argue that the condemned doctrine was not Origen’s own apokatastasis but a later, exaggerated version attributed to sixth-century Origenists.
• The council’s acts do not record discussions of universal salvation as a standalone issue, suggesting it was not a primary concern.
• Notably, St. Gregory of Nyssa, a known proponent of universal salvation, was referred to with honor by the council and later named “the Father of Fathers” by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, indicating that his universalist views were not condemned.

3. Did the Council Condemn Origen Himself?​

The council’s Canon 11 includes Origen’s name in a list of heretics:

"If anyone does not anathematize... Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings... let him be anathema."

This condemnation of Origen by name focuses primarily on Christological errors and other problematic teachings, not explicitly universal salvation. Some scholars argue that this anathema reflects a broader rejection of Origen’s legacy, influenced by Justinian’s campaign against Origenism, but others note that the council’s focus was narrow and did not address universalism directly.
Moreover, there’s evidence suggesting that the condemnation of Origen was controversial and possibly based on misrepresentations of his theology. For instance, modern translations of Origen’s On First Principles (e.g., by John Behr) indicate that some unorthodox views, like the pre-existence of souls, may have been falsely attributed to him by later critics.

4. Historical and Scholarly Context​

• Justinian’s Influence: Emperor Justinian played a significant role in shaping the council’s agenda, including the push to condemn Origenist ideas. His earlier edict in 543 CE included anathemas against Origen, and the fifteen anathemas of 553 may reflect his influence rather than the council’s consensus.
• Ambiguity of the Anathemas’ Status: Many historians question whether the fifteen anathemas were formally part of the council’s dogmatic decrees. They may have been appended to the council’s records later or endorsed by a smaller synod, lacking full ecumenical authority.
• No Condemnation of Other Universalists: Figures like Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, who expressed universalist hopes, were not condemned, suggesting the council’s focus was on specific Origenist doctrines rather than universal salvation broadly.

5. Conclusion​

The Fifth Ecumenical Council likely condemned the pre-existence of souls and a specific form of apokatastasis tied to it, as outlined in the first of the fifteen anathemas, though the formal status of these anathemas is debated. It did not issue a blanket condemnation of universal salvation as a concept, particularly not in the forms articulated by figures like Gregory of Nyssa, who grounded their hope in divine love rather than speculative protology. The council’s primary focus was Christological, and any condemnation of Origenism was likely aimed at sixth-century distortions rather than Origen’s original teachings or universal salvation broadly.
For a deeper dive, I recommend reading Fr. Aidan Kimel’s article, “Apokatastasis, Origenism, Fifth Ecumenical Council,” which thoroughly explores the historical nuances. If you’d like me to generate a chart or further analyze specific sources, let me know!



20 web pages

3.9s

 

[Fervent]

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, also known as the Second Council of Constantinople (553 CE), is a complex case when it comes to the condemnation of universal salvation (apokatastasis) and Origen’s teachings, particularly the pre-existence of souls. The council’s primary focus was addressing the controversy surrounding the "Three Chapters" (writings associated with Nestorianism), but it is often associated with condemning certain aspects of Origenism, including universal salvation and the pre-existence of souls. Let’s break it down:

1. Condemnation of Origenism and the Fifteen Anathemas​

The council is traditionally linked to a set of fifteen anathemas attributed to Emperor Justinian, which targeted Origenist teachings. The first anathema is particularly relevant:

This anathema explicitly condemns:

• The pre-existence of souls: The idea that souls exist before their union with bodies, a concept associated with Origen’s speculative theology.
• The "monstrous restoration" (apokatastasis): A form of universal salvation tied to the pre-existence of souls, where all souls, including demons, return to a primordial, disembodied spiritual state after a cycle of fall and restoration.

However, scholars debate whether these fifteen anathemas were formally adopted by the Fifth Ecumenical Council or were part of a separate local synod convened by Justinian in 543 CE or early 553 CE. The official acts of the council, as preserved, do not explicitly mention these anathemas or focus on universal salvation. Instead, they primarily address Christological issues related to the Three Chapters.

2. Did the Council Condemn Universal Salvation Broadly?​

The condemnation in the first anathema is not a blanket rejection of all forms of universal salvation but specifically targets a version of apokatastasis linked to the pre-existence of souls and a cyclical, spiritualized restoration. This is significant because not all proponents of universal salvation, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Isaac the Syrian, tied their hope for universal reconciliation to the pre-existence of souls. Their versions of apokatastasis were grounded in God’s infinite love and the transformative power of divine judgment, not Origen’s speculative protology (theory of origins).

• Key Point: The council’s condemnation, if the anathemas are accepted as part of its proceedings, does not appear to reject universal salvation as a general concept but rather a specific Origenist formulation. Scholars like Ilaria Ramelli argue that the condemned doctrine was not Origen’s own apokatastasis but a later, exaggerated version attributed to sixth-century Origenists.
• The council’s acts do not record discussions of universal salvation as a standalone issue, suggesting it was not a primary concern.
• Notably, St. Gregory of Nyssa, a known proponent of universal salvation, was referred to with honor by the council and later named “the Father of Fathers” by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, indicating that his universalist views were not condemned.

3. Did the Council Condemn Origen Himself?​

The council’s Canon 11 includes Origen’s name in a list of heretics:

This condemnation of Origen by name focuses primarily on Christological errors and other problematic teachings, not explicitly universal salvation. Some scholars argue that this anathema reflects a broader rejection of Origen’s legacy, influenced by Justinian’s campaign against Origenism, but others note that the council’s focus was narrow and did not address universalism directly.
Moreover, there’s evidence suggesting that the condemnation of Origen was controversial and possibly based on misrepresentations of his theology. For instance, modern translations of Origen’s On First Principles (e.g., by John Behr) indicate that some unorthodox views, like the pre-existence of souls, may have been falsely attributed to him by later critics.

4. Historical and Scholarly Context​

• Justinian’s Influence: Emperor Justinian played a significant role in shaping the council’s agenda, including the push to condemn Origenist ideas. His earlier edict in 543 CE included anathemas against Origen, and the fifteen anathemas of 553 may reflect his influence rather than the council’s consensus.
• Ambiguity of the Anathemas’ Status: Many historians question whether the fifteen anathemas were formally part of the council’s dogmatic decrees. They may have been appended to the council’s records later or endorsed by a smaller synod, lacking full ecumenical authority.
• No Condemnation of Other Universalists: Figures like Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, who expressed universalist hopes, were not condemned, suggesting the council’s focus was on specific Origenist doctrines rather than universal salvation broadly.

5. Conclusion​

The Fifth Ecumenical Council likely condemned the pre-existence of souls and a specific form of apokatastasis tied to it, as outlined in the first of the fifteen anathemas, though the formal status of these anathemas is debated. It did not issue a blanket condemnation of universal salvation as a concept, particularly not in the forms articulated by figures like Gregory of Nyssa, who grounded their hope in divine love rather than speculative protology. The council’s primary focus was Christological, and any condemnation of Origenism was likely aimed at sixth-century distortions rather than Origen’s original teachings or universal salvation broadly.
For a deeper dive, I recommend reading Fr. Aidan Kimel’s article, “Apokatastasis, Origenism, Fifth Ecumenical Council,” which thoroughly explores the historical nuances. If you’d like me to generate a chart or further analyze specific sources, let me know!



20 web pages

3.9s

Up until the recent resurgence of UR there was no debate, and as @Hentenza has cited the specific anathema there is no ambiguity that it condemns all who believe in the deliverance of demons and impious men. You're grasping at straws.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Whatever point you're trying to make here has to be extraordinarily strange,

I wasn't making a point, I was asking questions in response to someone else's point in the hope that they would clarify their point.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Up until the recent resurgence of UR there was no debate, and as @Hentenza has cited the specific anathema there is no ambiguity that it condemns all who believe in the deliverance of demons and impious men. You're grasping at straws.

As long as the straw is true I don’t mind at all

 

[Fervent]

As long as the straw is true I don’t mind at all

The straw is clearly not true, it's an attempt to re-write history.

 

[Hentenza]

As long as the straw is true I don’t mind at all

Your straw burned up a while back

 

[Clare73]

God punishing sinners justly, eternal hell with no chance of ever repenting is not just.

Who made that rule?

You're telling the supreme and all sovereign Judge of the universe what is just?

How do you think that is going to work out for you?

 

[Clare73]

Ultimate Reconciliation
Annhilationism
Eternal Torment

All three views have flaws to them, until there is a view that accounts for all the questions that scripture raises .. this issue will inevitably be a divisive one.

What "issue" does the NT raise regarding eternal torment presented by Jesus in Mt 25:46, as well as by John in Rev 14:11?

Jesus is the only one in the NT to speak (Mt 25:46, Mk 9:42-48) of hell (Gehenna).
We did not know it until he revealed it.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Who made that rule?

You're telling the supreme and all sovereign Judge of the universe what is just?

How do you think that is going to work out for you?

Its going to be just fine, when you know the love and character of God, you know that he is just and righteous and eternal punishment without the opportunity for reconciliation is frim satan not God. The idea that God would create and torcher most of his humanity, gives satan more glory than God, that is not of God.
Rom 2:20" but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more." Why do people think that where sin increased grace was diminished or lessoned? The plain reading is that the more sin that came the more that grace covered over or eliminated it, the way most think that as sin increased the more people go to hell forever.

 

[Clare73]

Its going to be just fine, when you know the love and character of God, you know that he is just and righteous and eternal punishment without the opportunity for reconciliation is from satan not God.

The opportunity for reconciliation was during their lifetime, through faith in Jesus Christ, which opportunity they rejected.
The door is now permanently closed.

I refer you to Ro 9:22-23. . .read it carefully to see who is in charge of the whole shootin match.

The idea that God would create and torcher most of his humanity, gives satan more glory than God, that is not of God.

Who made that rule?

Unless God's justice is gloriied thereby. . .

 

[Hentenza]

Its going to be just fine, when you know the love and character of God, you know that he is just and righteous and eternal punishment without the opportunity for reconciliation is frim satan not God. The idea that God would create and torcher most of his humanity, gives satan more glory than God, that is not of God.

You give more credit to satan than Jesus. You think Jesus sacrifice was weak and only enough to save a few. How pitiful.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

The opportunity for reconciliation was during their lifetime, through faith in Jesus Christ, which opportunity they rejected.
The door is now permanently closed.

I refer you to Ro 9:22-23. . .read it carefully to see who is in charge of the whole shootin match.

Who made that rule?

Unless God's justice is gloriied thereby. . .

I am not sure what Paul was trying to say in this verse, but I also know that the verse, which seems to go against UR on the surface does not cancel all the many verses that scripture says, God is going to reconcile all to himself. When I was in Bible college we were told that if you had multiple verses that said one thing and one or two verses that seem to be opposed that we were to let the weight of scripture tell us what to do, the weight of scripture does not follow Calvinist tradition.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

You give more credit to satan than Jesus. You think Jesus sacrifice was weak and only enough to save a few. How pitiful.

It is not I who think that most people will be tortured for all eternity, I believe Jesus when he said John 12:47 Jesus came to save the cosmos not to judge it. Jesus did not fail in his mission, as most in western tradition believe.

 

[Hentenza]

It is not I who think that most people will be tortured for all eternity, I believe Jesus when he said John 12:47 Jesus came to save the cosmos not to judge it. Jesus did not fail in his mission, as most in western tradition believe.

So do you think that impious people and demons will be saved?

 

[Clare73]

I am not sure what Paul was trying to say in this verse, but I also know that the verse, which seems to go against UR on the surface does not cancel all the many verses that scripture says, God is going to reconcile all to himself. When I was in Bible college we were told that if you had multiple verses that said one thing and one or two verses that seem to be opposed that we were to let the weight of scripture tell us what to do, the weight of scripture does not follow Calvinist tradition.

I understand.

Feel free to present the verses under question for examination.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

So do you think that impious people and demons will be saved?

I believe 1 Cor 15:28 that in the end " God will be all in all " it will happen, how it will all work out I do not know, but I know God is love and he does not do abandonment.