David Bentley Hart on Hell

Clare73 · Mar 13, 2021

Light of the East said:
Right. It means the garbage dump of Jerusalem. That is how a first century Jew listening to Jesus would have understood it. The Jewish religion in the first century had NO CONCEPT of an eternal, burning hell. You are thinking like a deluded 21st century Christian rather than a first century Jew. They didn't believe in a hell of eternal burning fire because no such belief existed.

(I don't know why I'm even bothering here)

Perhaps you should review Jesus' parable in Lk 16:19-31.

Keeping in mind parables are useless unless based on a believed reality.

East of Eden · Mar 13, 2021

Light of the East said:
Nonsense. Do you know where that thinking comes from? It is Medieval feudalism in which the idea was brought forth that the importance of a king made a crime against that king of landowner more grievous than if committed against a fellow serf.

Funny, I thought it came from the Bible.

Furthermore, in hellist thinking,

Like Jesus had?

all sins deserve eternal torment,

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The Bible describes our best efforts as dirty rags, literally menstrual rags.

which eliminates the gradiation of sins and the corresponding punishment for them. All sins are not equal, therefore the consequence for them cannot be the same in a proper establishment of justice.

Yes, there will be different levels of punishment in hell just as there will be differing rewards in heaven.

East of Eden · Mar 13, 2021

Light of the East said:
People who take joy in the suffering of others are sadists. People who take joy in the suffering of the wicked do not have the heart of Christ.

I would do some soul-searching if I were you.

David in the Psalms looked forward to the punishment of the wicked.

East of Eden · Mar 13, 2021

Light of the East said:
So you believe that Father John Behr, a pratristics scholar and professor at St. Vladamir's is also a "neo-orthodox?" Or perhaps you will just come right out and say that St. Gregory Nyssa, St. Isaac of Syria, and a host of other Fathers are just plain old heretics???

I don't take any of their opinions over Jesus' statements in the Bible.

East of Eden · Mar 13, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Since you wish it were otherwise, there is some hope that you will come to understand it. What do you make of this? Those who believe are a subset of all people that will be saved.

1 Timothy 4:10
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

How could God save all people and then save believers even more?

That verse is explained here:

1 Tim. 4:10 hope. Believers are saved in hope and live and serve in light of that hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2; 3:7; see note on Rom. 5:2). Working to the point of exhaustion and suffering rejection and persecution are acceptable because believers understand they are doing God’s work—which is the work of salvation. That makes it worth all of the sacrifices (Phil. 1:12–18, 27–30; 2:17; Col. 1:24–25; 2 Tim. 1:6–12; 2:3–4, 9–10; 4:5–8). the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. Paul is obviously not teaching universalism, that all people will be saved in the spiritual and eternal sense, since the rest of Scripture clearly teaches that God will not save everyone. Most will reject him and spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:11–15). Yet, the Greek word translated “especially” must mean that all people enjoy God’s salvation in some way like those who believe enjoy his salvation. The simple explanation is that God is the Savior of all people, only in a temporal sense, while of believers in an eternal sense. Paul’s point is that while God graciously delivers believers from sin’s condemnation and penalty because he was their substitute (2 Cor. 5:21), all people experience some earthly benefits from the goodness of God. Those benefits are: 1) common grace—a term that describes God’s goodness shown to all mankind universally (Ps. 145:9) in restraining sin (Rom. 2:15) and judgment (Rom. 2:3–6), maintaining order in society through government (Rom. 13:1–5), enabling man to appreciate beauty and goodness (Ps. 50:2), and showering him with temporal blessings (Matt. 5:45; Acts 14:15–17; 17:25); 2) compassion—the broken-hearted, loving pity that God shows to undeserving, unregenerate sinners (Ex. 34:6, 7; Ps. 86:5; Dan. 9:9; Matt. 23:37; Luke 19:41–44; cf. Isa. 16:11–13; Jer. 48:35–37); 3) admonition to repent—God constantly warns sinners of their fate, demonstrating the heart of a compassionate Creator who has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:30–32; 33:11); and 4) the gospel invitation—salvation in Christ is indiscriminately offered to all (Matt. 11:28–29; 22:2–14; John 6:35–40; Rev. 22:17; cf. John 5:39–40). God is, by nature, a saving God. That is, he finds no pleasure in the death of sinners. His saving character is revealed even in how he deals with those who will never believe, but only in these four temporal ways. See notes on 1 Tim. 2:6.

MacArthur Study Bible, ESV

Lukaris · Mar 13, 2021

Light of the East said:
So you believe that Father John Behr, a pratristics scholar and professor at St. Vladamir's is also a "neo-orthodox?" Or perhaps you will just come right out and say that St. Gregory Nyssa, St. Isaac of Syria, and a host of other Fathers are just plain old heretics???

I only mentioned Hart no one else & he claims St. Gregory of Nyssa represents some sort of collective Christian alleged truth of universalism. Next, you may say, “did I read his book?” My answers is no but I have a quote from Hart’s insistence on universalism against one of his critics,

One would never know it from reading the reviews in First Things, but That All Shall Be Saved is in fact a closely argued and continuous philosophical and theological argument. Its central contention is that the sort of universalism that one finds in Gregory of Nyssa is the sole version of the classical Christian narrative of God

Hart concludes,

I have made no secret of my conviction that the book’s argument is more or less invincible. Call me arrogant if you wish.

Are you saying I should agree with Hart on universalism? I thought the Orthodox Church teaches the final judgment from Matthew 25:31-46 straight forward? We just had final judgment Sunday on March 7th in preparation for Lent. My Orthodox Study Bible does not teach universalism in its notes on the final judgment. Surely I do not believe I automatically get to go to heaven over anyone and I could go to hell. Am I reading St. Gregory of Sinai wrong when he stated:

Chastisements differ, as do rewards of the righteous. Chastisements are inflicted in hell, in what Scripture describes as ‘a dark and gloomy land, a land of eternal darkness’ ( Job 10:21-22, Septuagint) where sinners dwell before the judgment and whither they return after judgment is given. For can the phrases, “Let sinners be returned to hell’ (Psalms 9:17 Septuagint) and ‘death will rule over them’ ( Psalms 49:14, Septuagint) refer to anything other than the final judgment visited upon sinners and their eternal condemnation?”

Philokalia vol.4, On commandments & doctrines #33.

My source for Hart’s quotes:
A Pakaluk of Lies | David Bentley Hart

Apologies on my edits,I only have an iPhone & my abilities are not too good but it is all there.

Saint Steven · Mar 14, 2021

East of Eden said:
How could God save all people and then save believers even more?

That verse is explained here:

That is the answer from a Damnationist POV. It disagrees with both Annihilationism and UR. (which both have biblical support)

Whatever I post in a biblical defense of UR is always met with, that does not mean what it plainly says, from Damnationists.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Since you wish it were otherwise, there is some hope that you will come to understand it. What do you make of this? Those who believe are a subset of all people that will be saved.

1 Timothy 4:10
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

Saint Steven · Mar 14, 2021

Lukaris said:
One would never know it from reading the reviews in First Things, but That All Shall Be Saved is in fact a closely argued and continuous philosophical and theological argument. Its central contention is that the sort of universalism that one finds in Gregory of Nyssa is the sole version of the classical Christian narrative of God

That's a good point. This citation is interesting in that regard.

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

Light of the East · Mar 14, 2021

QUOTE="Clare73 Perhaps you should review Jesus' parable in Lk 16:19-31.

Oh, I have!

A final appeal is made in this section on final impenitence to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

“For in death there is no one that is mindful of Thee. He knows too that now is the time for turning unto God: for when this life shall have passed away, there remaineth but a retribution of our deserts. “But in hell who shall confess to Thee?” That rich man, of whom the Lord speaks, who saw Lazarus in rest, but bewailed himself in torments, confessed in hell, yea so as to wish even to have his brethren warned, that they might keep themselves from sin, because of the punishment which is not believed to be in hell. Although therefore to no purpose, yet he confessed that those torments had deservedly lighted upon him; since he even wished his brethren to be instructed, lest they should fall into the same.” (Augustine’s Commentary on the Psalms 6:6).

Note again Augustine’s Roman courtroom thinking in which he declares that after death God gets His retribution. I cannot help but think that the cultural milieu in which Augustine moved and thought deeply influenced his ideas about God just as much as his Platonic thinking.

Notice what Augustine missed – the Rich Man had already begun to repent in his torment because he, who formerly was unconcerned about others, now begs to have his brothers warned. This is a metanoia, a change of mind, in short – repentance. Augustine, and commentators even to this day, missed this.

Since Matthew is the Gospel to the Jews in which Christ presents Himself to them as the expected Messiah, I think it appropriate to take the symbols in the parable and apply them to national Israel in the Lukian parable.

How was national Israel rich? Through her special relationship with God as the chosen people. Israel had the riches of God’s presence and leading, the Temple, and the relationship they had. The priests were clothed in purple and fine linen. I believe upon hearing these words, the priestly class listening to Christ would have begun to identify with it and take closer notice.

If national Israel was indeed the rich man who fared sumptuously every day, who was the beggar? I believe it was the Gentile nations who had none of the riches of a relationship with God. No temple, no law of God, no prophets, and no true worship. In terms of the true riches, they were bankrupt. The crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table could be the incidental hearing of the Jewish scriptures or seeing the worship in the Temple from the Outer Court of the Gentiles. These were crumbs, but not the full meal which the Jews enjoyed.

In verse 22 both men die. When we think of death, it is normal to think of the cessation of life in the human body. But in Scripture, death connotes something besides that. In Genesis 3 we see Adam and Eve die, but they are still alive. In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the father says “For this my son was dead, and is alive again...” In neither case do we see the cessation of physical life. What we see is separation, Adam and Eve from Paradise, the son from his father’s presence. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, both men are separated from the condition in which they exist and find themselves in a new condition. Thus they “die.”

The rich man died to his existence and became poor. He was without all the luxuries and benefits which he had previously enjoyed, and this was a torment to him. This is a picture of Judaism, which no longer enjoys the special covenant relationship with God it once had. National Israel is no longer God’s special people. In the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, national Israel is cast out of the vineyard (the Kingdom of God) and replaced. These two parables describe the same event. National Israel’s covenant with God ended in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. They are replaced by the Church, the nation of the Gentiles. Those who were once beggars for crumbs from God’s table now feast upon the riches of Liturgy, Sacraments, and the Word of God.

It is interesting to see how the beggar was brought to Abraham’s bosom. He was carried by angels. The word angel means “messenger.” Who were the messengers who brought the Gentile nations out of their spiritual poverty and into God’s rich and abundant mercy? The Apostles. They brought the message of the Gospel, the Good News of the Resurrection and God’s favor, to the ends of the known world, bringing with them the invitation to enter into the covenant which began with Abraham. St. Paul says “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” Abraham’s bosom is where the covenant father, Abraham, holds his children close to him in a special relationship.

On the other hand, in terms of their covenant with God being destroyed, national Israel was buried in AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman armies of Titus and the Temple razed to the ground. This burial was confirmed by later attempts to rebuild the Temple being met with disaster and death.

Keeping in mind parables are useless unless based on a believed reality.

Yes. And the reality is that Jesus came to national Israel and addressed them, not us. He offered Himself to them as Messiah, as their divine Bridegroom, but when they continually turned Him down, He turned to warning them of the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the end of national Israel as His covenant people. THAT is the context of the Gospels, not some hellist fantasy cooked up by Roman Catholic apologists to scare the hell out of people and make them obey the pope.

Light of the East · Mar 14, 2021

QUOTE="East of Eden

Funny, I thought it came from the Bible

Start studying Greek and you will soon learn how corrupted many of the texts are by bad translations.

Like Jesus had?

You seem to forget that Jesus was a Jew, not a Southern Baptist. The Jewish religion knew nothing of a burning eternal hell in the first century. It didn't start to appear in Judaism until the 2nd century, and it was begun by the Pharisees, the men who crucified the Lord. That these blind guides, whitewashed sepulchars, and serpents would borrow this doctrine from pagan mythology doesn't exactly make it a high recommendation for belief in hell.

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The Bible describes our best efforts as dirty rags, literally menstrual rags.

What does that have to do with the discussion here?

Yes, there will be different levels of punishment in hell just as there will be differing rewards in heaven.

Hell is about healing the soul, not about punishment.

Light of the East · Mar 14, 2021

East of Eden said:
David in the Psalms looked forward to the punishment of the wicked.

He also murdered Uriah and committed adultery with Bathsheba. I'll stick with God saying He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked against a guy who couldn't keep his Johnson to himself.

Light of the East · Mar 14, 2021

East of Eden said:
How could God save all people and then save believers even more?

That verse is explained here:

1 Tim. 4:10 hope. Believers are saved in hope and live and serve in light of that hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2; 3:7; see note on Rom. 5:2). Working to the point of exhaustion and suffering rejection and persecution are acceptable because believers understand they are doing God’s work—which is the work of salvation. That makes it worth all of the sacrifices (Phil. 1:12–18, 27–30; 2:17; Col. 1:24–25; 2 Tim. 1:6–12; 2:3–4, 9–10; 4:5–8). the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. Paul is obviously not teaching universalism, that all people will be saved in the spiritual and eternal sense, since the rest of Scripture clearly teaches that God will not save everyone. Most will reject him and spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:11–15). Yet, the Greek word translated “especially” must mean that all people enjoy God’s salvation in some way like those who believe enjoy his salvation. The simple explanation is that God is the Savior of all people, only in a temporal sense, while of believers in an eternal sense. Paul’s point is that while God graciously delivers believers from sin’s condemnation and penalty because he was their substitute (2 Cor. 5:21), all people experience some earthly benefits from the goodness of God. Those benefits are: 1) common grace—a term that describes God’s goodness shown to all mankind universally (Ps. 145:9) in restraining sin (Rom. 2:15) and judgment (Rom. 2:3–6), maintaining order in society through government (Rom. 13:1–5), enabling man to appreciate beauty and goodness (Ps. 50:2), and showering him with temporal blessings (Matt. 5:45; Acts 14:15–17; 17:25); 2) compassion—the broken-hearted, loving pity that God shows to undeserving, unregenerate sinners (Ex. 34:6, 7; Ps. 86:5; Dan. 9:9; Matt. 23:37; Luke 19:41–44; cf. Isa. 16:11–13; Jer. 48:35–37); 3) admonition to repent—God constantly warns sinners of their fate, demonstrating the heart of a compassionate Creator who has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:30–32; 33:11); and 4) the gospel invitation—salvation in Christ is indiscriminately offered to all (Matt. 11:28–29; 22:2–14; John 6:35–40; Rev. 22:17; cf. John 5:39–40). God is, by nature, a saving God. That is, he finds no pleasure in the death of sinners. His saving character is revealed even in how he deals with those who will never believe, but only in these four temporal ways. See notes on 1 Tim. 2:6.

MacArthur Study Bible, ESV

MacArthur is a heretic and a blind guide.

East of Eden · Mar 14, 2021

Light of the East said:
MacArthur is a heretic and a blind guide.

Because he isn't Orthodox? We disagree. Why don't you tell me which part of his argument you disagree with?

Light of the East · Mar 14, 2021

QUOTE="Lukaris,

Are you saying I should agree with Hart on universalism? I thought the Orthodox Church teaches the final judgment from Matthew 25:31-46 straight forward? We just had final judgment Sunday on March 7th in preparation for Lent. My Orthodox Study Bible does not teach universalism in its notes on the final judgment. Surely I do not believe I automatically get to go to heaven over anyone and I could go to hell. Am I reading St. Gregory of Sinai wrong when he stated:

No, we are saying that you should agree with the following: God is love and love would never do what Infernalists say God does to His children, even those who are dreadfully sick with sin. That alone should close the argument once and for all, but unfortunately, 1,500 years of pounding the hell message has made it seem like truth.

Secondly, Matthew 23-25 is about the destruction of Jersualem, not the end of the world. This puts a whole different light on the understanding of what Jesus is warning about. It is not the end of the world. There is no place in the chapters where you see Jesus do some sort of quantum jump from the destruction of the Temple to a time 2,000 years later.

Then there is the problem of mistranslation of the Greek. It is a problem throughout the Bible as the translators were Latins who did not understand Greek. Which leads me to the next question: has St. Gregory be translated correctly? I did some Google research and found that the English translations of some of the Fathers who appear to support eternal hell are mistranslations of the Greek. Of course, our English language has the Latin as its foundation. So we are back to the Latins mistranslating the Greek.

Chastisements differ, as do rewards of the righteous. Chastisements are inflicted in hell, in what Scripture describes as ‘a dark and gloomy land, a land of eternal darkness’ ( Job 10:21-22, Septuagint)

Notice that this says chastisements, which is exactly what the Universalists teach.

where sinners dwell before the judgment and whither they return after judgment is given.

Where do you find this in Scripture? This is a theologoumenon, not Scripture. The Scriptures show us that there is one judgment, after which the righteous enter union with Christ and the wicked enter chastening. It's in Revelation.

For can the phrases, “Let sinners be returned to hell’ (Psalms 9:17 Septuagint) and ‘death will rule over them’ ( Psalms 49:14, Septuagint) refer to anything other than the final judgment visited upon sinners and their eternal condemnation?”

This is Romish madness. Of all people, you as an Orthodox believer should know the difference between the law/punishment mindset of Rome and the medicinal/healing understanding of the East. Think about the time of year you are about to enter into. What do we sing at Pascha?

"Christ is risen from the dead, by death he trampled death"

Oh, no....wait. He didn't really trample death, did He? In fact, God keeps death going forever by creating a state of separation from Him called "eternal hell" into which He plunges billions of souls and keeps them in the state of death forever.

And you call that "trampling death????"

Not me, brother!

I will do some checking on the St. Gregory quote, but I bet you good money it is also a mistranslation. Thank the Roman Catholic Church for doing that.

Light of the East · Mar 14, 2021

East of Eden said:
Because he isn't Orthodox? We disagree. Why don't you tell me which part of his argument you disagree with?

Good grief, man, where do I start?

The very first Christians preached that baptism saves and baptized infant children into Christ (Romans 6:3)
They taught that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ.
The Church is established upon the Apostles, not some man who took it into his head that he has authority by himself and is responsible to no one.
The Church has priests to administer the Sacraments.
Mankind is NOT "totally depraved." This teaching, as with the five points of Calvinism, is Augustine's wretched anthropology on steroids.
There is no such thing as "elect unto damnation." What kind of monster do you and MacArthur think God is?
MacArthur, as a Baptist, has no idea of the Covenant of God or how it works. Every principle of Holy Orthodox, such as the Sacraments, is a principle of covenant.
Complete dishonor to the Theotokos. From the very beginning, Mary was honored among Christians as special because She is the "God-bearer."
Complete misunderstanding of what prayer is. When we pray to those who have gone to be with Christ, we are not praying to "dead people." Good grief, what kind of salvation do you have that those who die in Christ are still dead and not very much alive in Christ?
No veneration of icons, nor does he understand the history and theology behind it.

John MacArthur is like a walking Chick tract.

Light of the East · Mar 14, 2021

Saint Steven said:
That's a good point. This citation is interesting in that regard.

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

Four schools teaching Universalism. Doesn't exactly sound like a "small minority" does it? And where was the council? If this teaching is the dreadful heresy that some people think it to be (I just laugh watching Der Alter git his knickers in such a knot over this!!) there would have been a council long, loooooong before the sixth century when the thug emperor, Justinian, closed down the schools and attacked Apokatastasis because he personally didn't like it. He was afraid it would make people ungovernable, and the whole point of his emperorship and the Council of Constantinople II was to bring the empire into unity through submission. Read his quotes and you will see.

Lukaris · Mar 14, 2021

Light of the East said:
QUOTE="Lukaris,

Are you saying I should agree with Hart on universalism? I thought the Orthodox Church teaches the final judgment from Matthew 25:31-46 straight forward? We just had final judgment Sunday on March 7th in preparation for Lent. My Orthodox Study Bible does not teach universalism in its notes on the final judgment. Surely I do not believe I automatically get to go to heaven over anyone and I could go to hell. Am I reading St. Gregory of Sinai wrong when he stated:

No, we are saying that you should agree with the following: God is love and love would never do what Infernalists say God does to His children, even those who are dreadfully sick with sin. That alone should close the argument once and for all, but unfortunately, 1,500 years of pounding the hell message has made it seem like truth.

Secondly, Matthew 23-25 is about the destruction of Jersualem, not the end of the world. This puts a whole different light on the understanding of what Jesus is warning about. It is not the end of the world. There is no place in the chapters where you see Jesus do some sort of quantum jump from the destruction of the Temple to a time 2,000 years later.

Then there is the problem of mistranslation of the Greek. It is a problem throughout the Bible as the translators were Latins who did not understand Greek. Which leads me to the next question: has St. Gregory be translated correctly? I did some Google research and found that the English translations of some of the Fathers who appear to support eternal hell are mistranslations of the Greek. Of course, our English language has the Latin as its foundation. So we are back to the Latins mistranslating the Greek.

Chastisements differ, as do rewards of the righteous. Chastisements are inflicted in hell, in what Scripture describes as ‘a dark and gloomy land, a land of eternal darkness’ ( Job 10:21-22, Septuagint)

Notice that this says chastisements, which is exactly what the Universalists teach.

where sinners dwell before the judgment and whither they return after judgment is given.

Where do you find this in Scripture? This is a theologoumenon, not Scripture. The Scriptures show us that there is one judgment, after which the righteous enter union with Christ and the wicked enter chastening. It's in Revelation.

For can the phrases, “Let sinners be returned to hell’ (Psalms 9:17 Septuagint) and ‘death will rule over them’ ( Psalms 49:14, Septuagint) refer to anything other than the final judgment visited upon sinners and their eternal condemnation?”

This is Romish madness. Of all people, you as an Orthodox believer should know the difference between the law/punishment mindset of Rome and the medicinal/healing understanding of the East. Think about the time of year you are about to enter into. What do we sing at Pascha?

"Christ is risen from the dead, by death he trampled death"

Oh, no....wait. He didn't really trample death, did He? In fact, God keeps death going forever by creating a state of separation from Him called "eternal hell" into which He plunges billions of souls and keeps them in the state of death forever.

And you call that "trampling death????"

Not me, brother!

I will do some checking on the St. Gregory quote, but I bet you good money it is also a mistranslation. Thank the Roman Catholic Church for doing that.

The edition of the Philokalia vol.4 that I cited is Faber & Faber, isbn 0-571-19382-X, translated from the Greek & edited by GEH Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware ( before he became Bishop, I believe) with the assistance of Holy Transfiguration Monastery ( Brookline), Constantine Cavarnos, Dana Miller, Basil Osborne, Norman Russell in 1995.

I did not call anyone a heretic in my post even Hart. Maybe I should have called his teachings “newfangled” (with a high degree of skepticism implied) instead of “neo” . I stand by my points but if it seems like I called anyone a heretic, forgive me on that. It is a word I try to avoid as much as possible.

Cormack · Mar 14, 2021

Light of the East said:
He also murdered Uriah and committed adultery with Bathsheba. I'll stick with God saying He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked against a guy who couldn't keep his Johnson to himself.

Agreed. Not everything described in the Bible is prescribed by God, including the often dramatic and hyperbolic feelings of King David. Psalm 137:9, perfect example, “happy is the one who dashes babies against the rocks,” that’s not the heart of God or a guidebook for how Christians are meant to feel (imho.)

East of Eden · Mar 14, 2021

Light of the East said:
Four schools teaching Universalism. Doesn't exactly sound like a "small minority" does it?

So what? At one point the Arian heresy was the dominant view in the church.

East of Eden · Mar 14, 2021

Light of the East said:
Good grief, man, where do I start?

The very first Christians preached that baptism saves and baptized infant children into Christ (Romans 6:3)

Hitler was baptized as an infant, is he in heaven? Did MacArthur mention that subject?

They taught that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ.
The Church is established upon the Apostles, not some man who took it into his head that he has authority by himself and is responsible to no one.

MacArthur follows in the teaching of the Apostles more than many here.

The Church has priests to administer the Sacraments.

That's simply another word for pastor. This is from an Anglican site:

So far as we know, liturgical functions did not form a significant part of early Christian

leadership. Nowhere in the New Testament does it appear to be a matter of great

significance who baptizes, leads worship, or presides at the Lord's Table.

Mankind is NOT "totally depraved." This teaching, as with the five points of Calvinism, is Augustine's wretched anthropology on steroids.

Absolutely disagree, if your church gets salvation wrong, you don't have much. Even Paul called himself a wretched man. See What’s So Great About Total Depravity?

There is no such thing as "elect unto damnation." What kind of monster do you and MacArthur think God is?
MacArthur, as a Baptist,

His church is non-denominational.

has no idea of the Covenant of God or how it works. Every principle of Holy Orthodox, such as the Sacraments, is a principle of covenant.
Complete dishonor to the Theotokos. From the very beginning, Mary was honored among Christians as special because She is the "God-bearer."

Jesus didn't remotely honor Mary as the Orthodox and RCC do. Like us, she was a sinner in need of Christ's salvation, and it is ridiculous to say she never gave birth to other children as the Bible says she did, or that she ascended to heaven. Did she never go to the bathroom either?

Complete misunderstanding of what prayer is. When we pray to those who have gone to be with Christ, we are not praying to "dead people." Good grief, what kind of salvation do you have that those who die in Christ are still dead and not very much alive in Christ?

There is a great gulf fixed between us, as the parable of rich man and Lazarus says. If not, why didn't the rich man warn his brothers himself, and why was he in hell if universalism is right? The Bible says all believers are saints, do you pray to living Christians now? An omnipotent God doesn't need anyone to handle the overflow. "There is ONE mediator between man and God, Jesus Christ".

If you want to say works prove the genuineness of our faith, I agree.

David Bentley Hart on Hell

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Christian

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Well-Known Member

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Orthodox Christian

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads