The Restitution Of All Things

Shrewd Manager said:

I don't see the summary you mention. Is the citation you're referring to the same as the quoted passage I gave, as follows?

Definition 18.—If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come,

Click to expand...

No. I've seen that reference, but I've also seen cautions about this. I was referring to a summary of the definitions in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

"(18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc."

As far as I can tell, this is a summary produced by the editors. It looks like a summary of the fuller quote you have. I think I trust NPN, so since the summary seems to agree with your quotation, it's probably OK. That implies that the council did say that there is endless punishment. I think that's a rejection of restoration.

Incidentally, while the 5th Council didn't actually condemn restoration, and may not even have condemned Origen, the people at the 7th Council probably believed it had.

FineLinen said:

Dear Hedrick: Most Christians then and now are in for a rude awakening! Have you read George MacDonald? He has forgotten more than most of us will ever grasp on this side of Glory.

Unspoken Sermons by George MacDonald: Justice

Click to expand...

Plato said that justice is giving every man his due. That's been a standard concept. You can argue that for the prophets God's righteousness is shown by removing evil and restoring relationships, but that idea hasn't dominated Christian theology. Rather, the idea is that because of the Fall, we are evil, and merit infinite punishment.

The idea that justice means punishment is baked into many areas of theology, and many traditional exegeses of Biblical passages. You're not going to have much luck convincing anyone who is committed to traditional interpretations. That's pretty much everyone except liberal Protestants, together with Catholic Biblical scholars.

hedrick said:

No. I've seen that reference, but I've also seen cautions about this. I was referring to a summary of the definitions in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

"(18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc."

As far as I can tell, this is a summary produced by the editors. It looks like a summary of the fuller quote you have. I think I trust NPN, so since the summary seems to agree with your quotation, it's probably OK. That implies that the council did say that there is endless punishment. I think that's a rejection of restoration.

Incidentally, while the 5th Council didn't actually condemn restoration, and may not even have condemned Origen, the people at the 7th Council probably believed it had.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The reference to eternal punishment could be no more broadly defined than its scriptural source (ie no servant is greater than his master).

Again, the wording is:
" Definition 18.—If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to his merits in the righteous balance of the Lord, that neither will there be any end of punishment, nor indeed of the kingdom of heaven— that is, the full enjoyment of God ; for the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink, but righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Ghost, as the divine Apostle teaches—let him be anathema."

And the summary:

(18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc.

There's no elaboration of the point really any further than a restatement of Matt 25:46. It does not address apocatastasis at all. If the definition says that the wicked are punished forever is orthodox dogma, then why has universalism not been squarely condemned in 787 AD or before? It's 'too little, too late and too light on' from which to extrapolate a claim that universalism is condemned.

Moreover, if you read my last reply to St Jude, the Anathemas against Origen from Con II (which I agree do seem to have been on file for Nicea II) only condemn a 'monstrous' form of limited restoration (ie souls only). So one may infer that unlimited restoration was permissible doctrine. And rightly so, as the scriptures are saturated with it.

Also, with universalism, it's not necessary to deny a possibility of endless punishment (the eternal unquenchable fire), which represents a sinner's experiencing a theoretical perpetual state of impenitence. We say that in practice, the grace, mercy and irresistible love of God overcomes, God will wipe the tears from every crying eye. That's good news!! But can you find any gospel in dualistic works salvation that's not keeping you in chains of terror, fear, doubt and anxiety?

FineLinen said:

Dear Hedrick: The fall of A. & E. resulted in all of us "being made" sinners by "no choice of our own", but by "reason of Him" who so subjected it. In short, the fall into sin by A. & E. was all part & parcel of our Great God & His mighty Plan of reconciliation.

Regarding Plato: Divine justice is not giving "man his due" but bathing His justice in mercy & His mercy never fails nor His essence, LOVE.

Concerning what "has dominated" Christian Theology & "traditional interpretations", it simply shows how deep the fall of all falls is!

Click to expand...

Right on FL! What a bizarre and cruel travesty the mainstream have elected in the darkness of their bewilderment. Still, when God's true and perfect ways are revealed, we're blessed with a breathtaking 'new paradigm' which produces true rejoicing and thanksgiving. Praise His holy name!

FineLinen said:

Dear saint from down under S.M.: We rest in the God who IS fire/pur. We rest in the One who bathes His creation with Himself, and the theion of His great glory.

If one desires to escape Him>>>>

Good luck!

Click to expand...

...the divine judgment…does not primarily bring punishment on sinners. As our discourse has just shown, it operates only by separating good from evil and pulling the soul towards the fellowship of blessedness. It is the tearing apart of what has grown together which brings pain to the one who is being pulled...
(Gregory Nyssen, On the Soul and the Resurrection).

Also Sulphur Refining of Gold

FineLinen said:

Curse= katanathema=

By metonymy: accursed thing put to the thing announced.

“The leaves of the Tree are for healing the nations. Never again will anything be cursed. The Throne of God and of the Lamb is at the center. His servants will offer God service—worshiping, they’ll look on his face, their foreheads mirroring God. Never again will there be any night. No one will need lamplight or sunlight. The shining of God, the Master, is all the light anyone needs. And they will rule with him age after age after age.” -The Message-

There shall be NO MORE curse!

Click to expand...

Unfortunately F.L., it seems that this message is no longer current. Haven't you heard? It's been annulled pursuant to a line item in the fine print at the tail end of proceedings of an 8th century church counsel.

Sorry, my dear friend, but you are now on notice to 'read down' or 'totally ignore' said scriptures (and any others of similar import).

Kindly also report any dissidents and heretics to your local synagogue so they might receive a fresh cursing, visited upon them with an intense spirit of pusillanimity and contempt.

Disregard this official notice at your eternal peril!

FineLinen said:

“For the creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the sons of God.”

Liberated/ delivered/ set free= eleutheroo

“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope…”

And the hope is>>>

"The whole of created life shall be delivered from the bondage of change and decay into the glorious liberty of the sons of God."

Click to expand...

Hey Fine Linen, I'd like to ask your thoughts/ advice on a personal matter, if I may? Is there a means to do it privately via this site, or some other way?

Just to do with a decision I'm facing re my current church.

FineLinen said:

My brother: look at the top of the page. Do you see that little thingy Personal Message? INBOX Shazam we are on the verge of a P.M.

If that is not successful I will leave my e-mail for you elsewhere in la la land E.U.

Click to expand...

Thanks, all I could find there was Conversations option, so gave that a try!
lala land

hedrick said:

No. I've seen that reference, but I've also seen cautions about this. I was referring to a summary of the definitions in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

"(18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc."

As far as I can tell, this is a summary produced by the editors. It looks like a summary of the fuller quote you have. I think I trust NPN, so since the summary seems to agree with your quotation, it's probably OK. That implies that the council did say that there is endless punishment. I think that's a rejection of restoration.

Incidentally, while the 5th Council didn't actually condemn restoration, and may not even have condemned Origen, the people at the 7th Council probably believed it had.

Click to expand...

So as a universalist I'm pretty comfortable with the outcome of this debate/ discussion.

Our findings are that the sum total of ecumenical evidence against apocatastasis consists of:

• Nil decrees or canons.
• Nil direct condemnations.
  
• 2 anathemas against limited (ie Origenist soul-only) restoration.
• 1 definition in favour of endless punishment, buried in the fine print at the tail end of the reports of the final session of the last Council in 787 AD.

Do you concur?

Shrewd Manager said:

So as a universalist I'm pretty comfortable with the outcome of this debate/ discussion.

Our findings are that the sum total of ecumenical evidence against apocatastasis consists of:

• Nil decrees or canons.
• Nil direct condemnations.
  
• 2 anathemas against limited (ie Origenist soul-only) restoration.
• 1 definition in favour of endless punishment, buried in the fine print at the tail end of the reports of the final session of the last Council in 787 AD.

Do you concur?

Click to expand...

Yes

But in some sense it doesn't matter. Remember that the people for whom these councils matter see them as expressions of the infallibility of the Church. The Church in general has accepted that the 5th Council condemned Origen. That may not have actually done so may not be critical. Similarly the Church in general has accepted that the Councils condemned universalism. That the only place there's a an undisputed statement was in a somewhat ambiguous footnote may not matter, because Church tradition regards it as having been settled by the councils.

I don't know about the East, but in the West a doctrine can be settled without any formal counciliar decision. Things that have been believed everywhere and always are just as infallible as things settled by a formal process. Everywhere and always, in this context, is interpreted somewhat loosely. Eternal damnation, and the rejection of universalism, would be considered one of these things, even though it actually does have some support in the early Church, and may have been taught by Paul and John. (Scriptural interpretation is also a function of the Church in these traditions, so what you and I think Paul meant isn’t very important.)

hedrick said:

Yes

Click to expand...

Corrigendum, apologies - it was in the 6th of 8 sessions of the 7th Council.

The 7th Council was convoked primarily for the purpose of addressing the iconoclast controversy, and restore icon-worship:

...like the holy cross, the gospels, and the relics of the saints, to these images offerings of incense and lights may be made, as was the custom of our ancestors. For the honour rendered to the image passes to that which the image represents, and whosoever adores an image adores the person it depicts.
The Seven Ecumenical Councils

And the 6th session was devoted to:

The Refutation of the Patched-up and falsely so called Definition of the Disorderly Assembled Crew of the Christianity-detractors. (p.303)

So do you consider the Ecumenical Counsel evidence provides a sufficient or reliable basis for the claim that universal restoration is heretical doctrine? Is there really any case to answer?

Shrewd Manager said:

Corrigendum, apologies - it was in the 6th and penultimate session of the 7th Council.

The 7th Council was convoked primarily for the purpose of addressing the iconoclast controversy, and restore icon-worship:

...like the holy cross, the gospels, and the relics of the saints, to these images offerings of incense and lights may be made, as was the custom of our ancestors. For the honour rendered to the image passes to that which the image represents, and whosoever adores an image adores the person it depicts.
The Seven Ecumenical Councils

And the 6th session was devoted to:

The Refutation of the Patched-up and falsely so called Definition of the Disorderly Assembled Crew of the Christianity-detractors. (p.303)

So do you consider the Ecumenical Counsel evidence provides a sufficient or reliable basis for the claim that universal restoration is heretical doctrine? Is there really any case to answer?

Click to expand...

See the additions to my previous answer.

My own tradition (mainline Protestantism), for what it's worth, considers universalism acceptable. Indeed it has very strong support among clergy and lay people in our churches.

hedrick said:

Yes

But in some sense it doesn't matter. Remember that the people for whom these councils matter see them as expressions of the infallibility of the Church. The Church in general has accepted that the 5th Council condemned Origen. That may not have actually done so may not be critical. Similarly the Church in general has accepted that the Councils condemned universalism. That the only place there's a an undisputed statement was in a somewhat ambiguous footnote may not matter, because Church tradition regards it as having been settled by the councils.

I don't know about the East, but in the West a doctrine can be settled without any formal counciliar decision. Things that have been believed everywhere and always are just as infallible as things settled by a formal process. Everywhere and always, in this context, is interpreted somewhat loosely. Eternal damnation, and the rejection of universalism, would be considered one of these things, even though it actually does have some support in the early Church, and may have been taught by Paul and John. (Scriptural interpretation is also a function of the Church in these traditions, so what you and I think Paul meant isn’t very important.)

Click to expand...

Ok, but now we have confidence that the stigma of heresy here is really just another mythology that's been built up to protect the sanctity of usurping eternal damnation doctrine. The truth seems to be at least that there was no general antipathy towards universalism in the upper eschelons of the early church.

On the other hand, we could find several condemnations applicable to Protestantism in the Ecumenical dogma.

It is important because if we don't love the truth (in everything), then how can we ever be worthy to serve Christ?

Has all this brought you any closer to accepting universalism?