The True Church? I'm Disillusioned.

Rayanne said:

That's really good to know!

Click to expand...

indeed!

QUOTE="ArmyMatt

"your blog post is irrelevant to the discussion, since it doesn't deal with what we are dealing with. Just because YOU repented doesn't mean everyone will."

Did you read the blog post? If so, how could you say that? I made it clear in the blog post that I was completely sold out to evil, just as many are today who will die without repenting. The fact that I repented had nothing to do with me (I would have continued in sin till I killed myself) but everything with the wisdom of God who let me "run out my string" in sin until of my own free-will I realized that this was a fool's bargain and I was the fool. That begin the search and it culminated in God arranging a series of circumstances which led me to confront the Gospel and repent.

Father, I AM everyone!!! Every person ever born, you included, has NO INTEREST in God whatsoever. This is the damage and corruption of sin. We are totally self-centered, and it takes the grace of God, combined with His wisdom in treating each case differently, to bring us each to that point that we realize that it is in our best interest to turn to a God who loves us.

Your point of contention with me is not this, but really amounts to the idea that once dead, the soul cannot repent. Yet there is absolutely ZERO proof of this, either in Scripture or elsewhere. We are quite in the dark about the state of souls once in the hands of God. Thomistic philosophy states that the soul cannot repent, and goes into some rather esoteric theologumens to prove it.

And I disagree.

ArmyMatt said:

yes. because if the conditions of those councils return, they are in full force. many are not followed because the times have changed, but should society change back, those canons have their strength.

anathemas are not the same as excommunications. yes, when against erroneous theology they are infallible.

Click to expand...

Truth is conditional and based on the times????

ArmyMatt said:

not necessarily, unless they do it willingly. no one is condemned for unintentional ignorance or whatever.

Click to expand...

Of what force are the 85 Apostolic Canons? Are they on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils?

Light of the East said:

Truth is conditional and based on the times????

Click to expand...

no, canons are guidelines, not hard fast laws. they are theology in time.

Light of the East said:

Of what force are the 85 Apostolic Canons? Are they on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils?

Click to expand...

depends on the situation. canons always express truth, but their application depends on the situation. some of the situations are current, and those canons still fully apply. some aren't.

Light of the East said:

QUOTE="ArmyMatt

"your blog post is irrelevant to the discussion, since it doesn't deal with what we are dealing with. Just because YOU repented doesn't mean everyone will."

Did you read the blog post? If so, how could you say that? I made it clear in the blog post that I was completely sold out to evil, just as many are today who will die without repenting. The fact that I repented had nothing to do with me (I would have continued in sin till I killed myself) but everything with the wisdom of God who let me "run out my string" in sin until of my own free-will I realized that this was a fool's bargain and I was the fool. That begin the search and it culminated in God arranging a series of circumstances which led me to confront the Gospel and repent.

Father, I AM everyone!!! Every person ever born, you included, has NO INTEREST in God whatsoever. This is the damage and corruption of sin. We are totally self-centered, and it takes the grace of God, combined with His wisdom in treating each case differently, to bring us each to that point that we realize that it is in our best interest to turn to a God who loves us.

Your point of contention with me is not this, but really amounts to the idea that once dead, the soul cannot repent. Yet there is absolutely ZERO proof of this, either in Scripture or elsewhere. We are quite in the dark about the state of souls once in the hands of God. Thomistic philosophy states that the soul cannot repent, and goes into some rather esoteric theologumens to prove it.

And I disagree.

Click to expand...

yes, I did read the entire blog post. and no, you are not everyone. you are you and I am me. just because you saw what God was doing doesn't mean everyone will.

and no, that isn't my point. my point is once the Last Judgment happens those who are in hell, are in hell. if you say there is nothing in the Church about that, you are wrong. I have stuff from St Ephraim of Syria, to St Theophan the recluse, to St Nikolai of Ziccha that says otherwise. we are in the dark about a lot, but not about the eternity of hell.

I really don't know why you brought up Thomism, since I am not a Thomist.

and your point about everyone ever born is also wrong. St John the Baptist recognized Christ while still in the womb.

I think what is being missed here is that Fr. Matt is not saying that it is a good thing that some people will not be saved. It is a tragedy, but it is a tragedy that reflects on us, and not on God's love for us.

Before my wife and I knew that there is a chance that no matter how well I raise them they may choose to leave the Church, they may choose the path of evil and separation from God. They may choose to never speak to me again. It is certainly not what I would want, and I will do everything I can to keep that from happening, but I can't force them to love me or to love God. I can't chain them in the basement or drug them or brainwash them, they must choose to love me and to love God. To try to coerce them would not really be love even if it kept them safe. I love them enough that I guide them as best as I can and give them freedom to turn their backs on my knowing that I have done the best I can to instill in them a desire to return. Look at the parable of the Prodigal. The Father waits for the prodigal son to return knowing that the life he offers is better than anything the prodigal would find elsewhere, but he doesn't keep the son from leaving, and he doesn't chase him down and kidnap him. He waits. He accepts back. He loves.

What God did for Light of the East is what He does for everyone, but not everyone will respond to that love. That is a tragedy. We can hope beyond what seems reasonable that God will find a way to restore such a person to a proper relationship no matter how they were when they departed this life, what we can't do is say that the choice the person made is not relevant because God is good and God is loving. It is a granted that God is good and God is loving, it is a granted that God desires not the death of a sinner but that he should turn and live. The tragedy is that some people don't care what God desires and would rather die than turn.

Rayanne said:

Fr. Matt,

Why are those particular Saints authoritative on this matter? I still have yet to get an answer, from anyone I have ever asked, where the authority lies in the Orthodox Church, since it doesn't lie with any one particular Saint or Church Father or even always with the majority (plus it's not as if lay Orthodox people are consulted or get to "vote"). The best answer I have ever gotten for this question was from an Orthodox priest who said, "We don't really have clear answers for these questions."

Emperor Justinian - who was the force behind condemning apokatastasis in the 5th ecumenical council - how can he be equated with the voice of the Holy Spirit?

If we don't have clear answers to this question, as this priest said, then apokatastasis is on the table as a possibility, especially given the Scriptural support (see the book The Golden Thread: God's Promise of Universal Salvation) and the philosophical support (see the book Universal Salvation? The Current Debate) and the support from many Christians in every era including some Orthodox Saints.


Rayanne

Click to expand...

I didn't post those saints as having authority or anything per say, but to show Light's comment that there is nothing about no repentance after death as being false.

now, your point about the laity not having a say is also incorrect. what makes a council Ecumenical is when the Church as a whole accepts it, to include the laity. which happened to the 5th, which was affirmed by the 6th, Qunisext, and 7th Councils. the authority lies in the Spirit speaking through the whole, most clearly in a council. so the fact that 3 Councils affirm that universalism is heresy, that means it's heresy.

and no book trumps an Ecumenical Council. this isn't even a debate. we do have clear answers on this, it's just that some folks don't wanna listen or think they know better.

Rayanne said:

I want to address the argument from free will, which is the philosophical argument that most Christians use to support eternal hell. Ezekial 36:26 says, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh (ASV). Also, Jesus says that, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (NIV) It doesn't seem to me from Scripture that God has anything against effectively softening our hearts and effectively drawing us towards Himself.

Secondly, the preference for evil is irrational. It stems from not knowing ("They know not what they do") and therefore involves ignorance as well. In light of that, is there any value in a libertarian free will that allows us to make an uninformed or irrational decision to turn away from God? No, there is no value in that. That's why we intervene when people are on the brink of suicide or destroying themselves with addictions.

Rayanne.

Click to expand...

actually, this is incorrect. for one, free will in Orthodoxy is theology and not philosophy.

just because God draws us toward Him, that doesn't mean our hearts will soften if we never want God.

to your second point, not all sin is done in ignorance. Christ says this about a lot of the religious leaders. Adam wasn't ignorant of God's command when he sinned.

Rayanne said:

Father Matt,

Are the laity actually consulted? Were they consulted then? Are they consulted now? It would be best if they were/are, to help take into account what the Holy Spirit may be speaking. But did the laity actually have any influence on the teachings of the church in the past? If they disagreed with them, they likely either left the church, or they remained Orthodox yet disagreed, or they simply never took the time to personally look into the issues (just like the way things happen now).

Click to expand...

yes, St Maximos the confessor, hero of the 6th Council, was a layman. every emperor at an Ecumenical Council was a layman. the Eunomian heresy was thwarted by the local laity and not the bishops. one of the reasons the council of Florence was a robber council because the laity opposed it. the laity are the final affirmation to make an Ecumenical Council, actually ecumenical.

so yes.

I would think if it was possible that universalism was evident then it would have been affirmed.

Rayanne said:

Thank you, Father Matt, for attempting to answer some of my questions with some helpful information. I appreciate that. I still think, from this information, that the masses of Orthodox Christians are not involved in these decisions and that, of course, the majority of human beings are not seriously educated in the details of what they believe anyways. If all Christians were seriously educated in Scripture, church history, and philosophy and then had been/could be consulted in these decisions, I think the outcomes in some church teachings (such as whether Universalism should actually be condemned) could be different. I think this is one of the things that concerns me. As it stands, I don't have a good reason to believe that emperors with political motives are necessarily inspired by the Holy Spirit in their decisions and pronouncements. I can't blindly put my faith in that, unless someone can give me very good reasons to.

I continue to have unanswered questions to my challenges about Universalism and about where authority lies in the Orthodox Church and what are the criteria and justifications for that authority being valid. I think my challenges and questions are warranted, but this forum is apparently not a place where I can receive the answers these questions deserve. Therefore, I am going to bow out from here and hope, though continued study and conversations, to gain more knowledge and understanding. But thank you for your time, and I do wish you all the best.

Rayanne

Click to expand...

well, my point was that in regards to universalism, the masses were involved. the Synodal decisions are always taken back to the people for full acceptance. that's why I can say universalism is a heresy. it wasn't just the Emperors.

the criteria and authority lies in the Church as a whole. so in regards to universalism, it was refuted before, during, and after the 5th Council in all kinds of ways.

I suppose one can think all will be saved but not try to redefine church teaching. This would include expressing this as your opinion keeping canon in mind ( I suppose).

Whenever the teaching of the Church has been challenged, God has always raised up champions to defend the Church teaching against heresy. This has NOT happened with the teaching of universalism.
If it was the teaching of the Church, then where are those champions of the faith who would have withstood Justinian?