Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

MMXX, I told you already, if you have nothing of Gods word to share with me ( nothing good but your strife) do so to others, not to me thanks, and bye bye.

Here you go. (more where this came from - the Bible)

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Titus 2:11 ESV
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

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.

1 John 4:14
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Romans 5:15-16
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Colossians 1:19-20
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

1 Timothy 2:1-6
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

Romans 3:24 NIV
and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Romans 9:16 NIV
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

 

[Saint Steven]

Any good showman gives encores before exiting stage left.

They should give this guy the hook. - lol

 

[Ceallaigh]

if you want to pick on words and questions of words ( men's words)

That's the fourth time you've said to disregard your words man.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I am going to withdraw myself for now

 

[Fervent]

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

Modern scholarship strikes again! Historically, the anathematizing has never been questioned. If it weren't actually so, why wouldn't people in the 6th century have challenged it? Modern skeptical inquiry often creates problems that do not truly exist.

 

[Fervent]

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.

Considering that the texts that point to damnation are spread across translations, challenging them without actually knowing the base language hints very strongly at personal bias.

As for your misunderstanding by my reference to Dante, it is not support for damnation simply a marker of history because the time of its composition is fairly well known.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Considering that the texts that point to damnation are spread across translations, challenging them without actually knowing the base language hints very strongly at personal bias.

As for your misunderstanding by my reference to Dante, it is not support for damnation simply a marker of history because the time of its composition is fairly well known.

"Across translations" means only that error perpetuates error.

I did not misunderstand, I just have a different POV than most folks...and Dante's works are most certainly support for damnation.

 

[Hmm]

Modern scholarship strikes again! Historically, the anathematizing has never been questioned. If it weren't actually so, why wouldn't people in the 6th century have challenged it? Modern skeptical inquiry often creates problems that do not truly exist.

So you're now saying that there's no point to ongoing scholarship whereas earlier you were saying it supports your view point? My head hurts trying to follow your labyrinth logic

 

[Abaxvahl]

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

There are points on either side of this. IIRC some Origenists monks immediately reacted to this Council and saw it as condemning them in that era, for that reason I do think it was part of the Council. But either way one thing people don't realize (which is annoying) is there are at least seven different types of Universalism, and because the Origenist type was condemned at the Council does not mean all types were condemned at the Council.

To know if your type was not condemned just simply see if you can say "no" to all of these questions:

1) Was there a pre-existence of all souls (including the Lord's, whose flesh came before His soul and divinity came to it) which fell before being enfleshed?
2) Will demons be saved eventually (and that Christ died for them)?

There are some other weird beliefs of them IIRC that no one holds anymore (at least I've never seen a Universalist say we'll rise as spheres because it's the perfect shape), so that doesn't matter, but y'all can read the anathemas yourselves and see very clearly not all sorts of Universalism are condemned, only the insane Origenist version which is a whole vision and can not be broken up into parts.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Modern scholarship strikes again! Historically, the anathematizing has never been questioned. If it weren't actually so, why wouldn't people in the 6th century have challenged it? Modern skeptical inquiry often creates problems that do not truly exist.

Modern scholarship has uncovered numerous things throughout world of history that have been traditionally held to be true, but when thoroughly investigated turned out to either be distorted or untrue. The same goes for anthropology.

 

[Hmm]

there are at least seven different types of Universalism, and because the Origenist type was condemned at the Council does not mean all types were condemned at the Council.

And that's very natural. There are many different types of Protestantism too, no?

To know if your type was not condemned just simply see if you can say "no" to all of these questions:

1) Was there a pre-existence of all souls (including the Lord's, whose flesh came before His soul and divinity came to it) which fell before being enfleshed?
2) Will demons be saved eventually (and that Christ died for them)?

Neither of these points have anything to do with Christina universalism whatsoever. If you believe they have, perhaps you can say what the connection is?

 

[Ceallaigh]

So you're now saying that there's no point to ongoing scholarship whereas earlier you were saying it supports your view point? My head hurts trying to follow your labyrinth logic

I believe that's called conformation bias.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Neither of these points have anything to do with Christina universalism whatsoever. If you believe they have, perhaps you can say what the connection is?

That is exactly what I am saying. If the Council condemned Origenism then the sort of Universalism it condemned does not apply to most Universalists like you or DBH in our era. I do not believe they have a connection, so I am saying bringing up this Council to condemn Universalists 99% of the time is a waste and doesn't go against their position.

 

[Ceallaigh]

When it comes to universalism and early church fathers, Gregory of Nyssa (who was known by the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council as the "Father of Fathers"), seems to get overlooked.

 

[Hmm]

That is exactly what I am saying. If the Council condemned Origenism then the sort of Universalism it condemned does not apply to most Universalists like you or DBH in our era. I do not believe they have a connection, so I am saying bringing up this Council to condemn Universalists 99% of the time is a waste and doesn't go against their position.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood you, my bad. Good point actually!

 

[Fervent]

So you're now saying that there's no point to ongoing scholarship whereas earlier you were saying it supports your view point? My head hurts trying to follow your labyrinth logic

No, I have not said that. Modern scholarship is valuable, but must be kept in proper perspective especially when dealing with history. Critical histories are more likely to lean towards skepticism over things that need not be skeptical about. The proceedings of the ecumenical councils are far more likely to have been understood by those immediately contemporary while simultaneously being poorly documented.

 

[Fervent]

When it comes to universalism and early church fathers, Gregory of Nyssa (who was known by the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council as the "Father of Fathers"), seems to get overlooked.

Probably because Gregory of Nyssa wasn't a universalist, at least not in the modern conception. Gregory of Nyssa believed that all of humanity would be saved, but that those who willfully reject Christ would be stripped of their humanity and rendered pure malevolent wills when cast into the pit.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Probably because Gregory of Nyssa wasn't a universalist, at least not in the modern conception. Gregory of Nyssa believed that all of humanity would be saved, but that those who willfully reject Christ would be stripped of their humanity and rendered pure malevolent wills when cast into the pit.

Where does he say this? Now that is a fascinating idea and one I have seen elsewhere.

 

[Fervent]

Where does he say this? Now that is a fascinating idea and one I have seen elsewhere.

It's something that has to be taken from his complete body of works, but the closest he comes to outright explaining the concept is in his works on baptism. It's a fairly common philsophical position from the Alexandrian school refining just a bit on Clement's writings in the same vein.

 

[Ceallaigh]

No, I have not said that. Modern scholarship is valuable, but must be kept in proper perspective especially when dealing with history. Critical histories are more likely to lean towards skepticism over things that need not be skeptical about. The proceedings of the ecumenical councils are far more likely to have been understood by those immediately contemporary while simultaneously being poorly documented.

Have you studied it thoroughly enough to know for sure that Fr Aidan Kimel is incorrect about what transpired?