Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yet the Hebrew word claimed to be "wild ox" has nothing in common with the Hebrew word for "ox". Is the same found for other domesticated vs. wild in Hebrew naming of animals?I have no idea. I just went straight to the Hebrew. "Strong as an ox" is certainly a familiar term.
Yet the Hebrew word claimed to be "wild ox" has nothing in common with the Hebrew word for "ox". Is the same found for other domesticated vs. wild in Hebrew naming of animals?
We are exhorted to hold fast to the traditions handed down by the Apostles, not to believe whatever happens to be the flavor of the month
They were defending the faith handed down by the ApostlesThe Councils of the Church which condemned universalism were the Apostles?
They were defending the faith handed down by the Apostles
He deliberately puts his opinion in opposition to the fathers of our church. His approach is confrontational; he misrepresents Orthodox Christian faith.
David Bentley Hart’s That All Shall Be Saved: a Review and Rejoinder – No Other Foundation
Exactly.According to that reviewer's opinion, right?
Exactly.
And the reviewer should not have done the review. He and Hart used to debate Universalism. The reviewer criticizes Hart for not presenting a stronger argument or providing footnote citations. However, as a reader of the book, and the reviewer should have read it as well, Hart writes that the intention of the book is not to present all his arguments AGAIN, this takes a different approach. He has four lengthy meditations on key issues: Who is God?; What is judgment?; What is a person; What is freedom? And any needed citations are included in the text, not as footnotes. Very disingenuous review criticisms. The guy obviously hates Hart.
Perhaps everyone who learns a second language is not as fluent as a native born speaker of that language.Why didn't the Greek speaking Jews who translated the Torah use the Greek term for "wild ox" then? Greek has a huge vocabulary, four times the vocabulary of Latin, so it's not as if they didn't have a word or expression to accurated convey the meaning of the Hebrew. When did modern scholarship determine that it means "wild ox"?
Why didn't the Greek speaking Jews who translated the Torah use the Greek term for "wild ox" then? Greek has a huge vocabulary, four times the vocabulary of Latin, so it's not as if they didn't have a word or expression to accurated convey the meaning of the Hebrew.
So when was universalism officially condemned?
Indeed! In the talk he explains why Christian Universalism came to be regarded as heretical. The quote's quite long - luckily I managed to find a transcript - but interesting and sheds a lot of light on the matter. The council in question is the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553.
"Now onto the third area of debate and this is one that does interest me. In the sixth century, there was a big ecumenical council where leaders from across the Church around the world got together and decided on various issues. If you are of the stream of Christianity that thinks that ecumenical councils are important—and I am, I think they really matter—one of the issues with this particular council is that there is an appendix. The document councils—which were all about who was Jesus—tacked onto the end an appendix with a list of curses against… Well, it didn’t say who it’s against but they are often called the curses against Origen, even though they didn’t name him. It anathematizes or curses those who believe in this hideous doctrine of Apocatastasis. The reason this is important—and it’s particularly important if you’re a Catholic or Orthodox Christian—is if an ecumenical council declared universalism to be a heresy, then it is a heresy and that’s that, that kind of kills it there. So it does matter and there is debate among patristic scholars about this.
The majority view—and we can’t know for sure as we weren’t there—is that the appendix was not part of the actual council itself. It was the Emperor Justinian—who really hated universalism—who called the council. There was lots of controversy about the council. For example, the Pope wouldn’t go but he had to be there for it to count so they went and got soldiers and dragged him along but he refused to open up the council, which is what the Pope was meant to do. Anyway, Justinian was really determined to get through his anti-universalist thing. Before the council started, lots of bishops are getting there early (they arrived like months early because they’re coming from all over the world and the planes were rubbish in those days!) so Justinian calls them together and they kind of ratify these anathemas, these curses. Because Justinian wants to give it the aura of a sort of consensus view of the ecumenical Church, he sort-of tacks it on to the end of the council’s document. Now, if that is the case, then it has a really peculiar status. It doesn’t have the status of an ecumenical council because it wasn’t part of the proceedings of the council—so strictly speaking it’s not heresy—and yet it does kind of carry some of the momentum of that council.
There’s another debate related to this and this is more within Orthodox Christianity. Even if it’s true that this isn’t part of the proceedings of the council and that universalism wasn’t declared heresy, then the debate is, “But mate, lots of people came to think that it was and so doesn’t that make it so?” There is actually a genuine debate among some scholars as to whether that would make it so. I don’t think it would, I don’t think that would be right at all but anyway that’s me.
The other question is this, “What exactly was condemned in the council?” Was it universalism per se that was condemned or was it a particular species of universalism? I argue and lots of folk are starting to argue now (not because of me by the way, it’s a coincidence, it’s not that all these patristic scholars have read me and went, “Flip, why didn’t we think of that!”) So they think—and I’m agreeing with them because they’re clever—that actually it’s not universalism as an abstract idea, it’s universalism as connected to a whole bunch of other ideas as part of a network or system of beliefs that was very problematic. Maybe you think I’m going on about this too much but it does really matter for a lot of Christians as to whether universalism is technically a heresy, which is why I’m saying a little bit more about it.
The background to this is that Origen’s ideas had been developed in the centuries after him. He was around in the third century and the council was in the sixth century. By that time—particularly in certain monasteries in Palestine—Origen’s ideas have been developed, sometimes in quite quirky ways, ways that were tied in with pre-existence of souls and reincarnation and a whole bunch of other stuff. What was condemned in those anathemas or those curses is that whole system, that network. The monstrous doctrine of Apocatastasis and the restoration of demons and all that, that is condemned is the doctrine as connected into that whole network. If you read them, you’ll see some of those connections. Which means that, in fact, universalism as such is not condemned, just that particular species of universalism. Which is why, for instance, Gregory of Nyssa is never condemned, in fact, he is called the “father of the fathers.” He is one of the architects of Christian orthodoxy and is highly esteemed by those who are within Catholicism and Orthodoxy. He’s a Saint, even though he was an overt universalist because he didn’t believe in the pre-existence of souls and all this kind of stuff that was condemned.
All of this is to say, there is an ongoing debate about that and it matters because it ties into the whole question of whether universalism is heresy. I’m of the view that it’s not, or I would be in trouble—maybe not with God, who knows, maybe with God, I wouldn’t want to be in trouble with God."
The transcript says otherwise. Good work, guys!Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553.
MMXX said: ↑
So when was universalism officially condemned?
The transcript says otherwise. Good work, guys!
It seems that some make a god out of orthodoxy. Even in a situation like this. The facts are ignored. Defend the dogma at all cost.
Could you include at least one more caveat there? You had such a good thing going. - lolMore like kinda semi-officially sort of depending on what's meant by universalism.
רים occurs 6 times in the OT the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation translates it as wild ox all 6 times.
Num 23:22 God who brought them forth out of Egypt is for them like the lofty horns of the wild-ox.But I'm certain those who want to can find a version that fits their assumptions/presuppositions.
Numbers 24:8
8 God who brought him forth out of Egypt is for him like the lofty horns of the wild-ox; he shall eat up the nations that are his adversaries, and shall break their bones in pieces, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Job 39:9
9 Will the wild-ox be willing to serve thee? Or will he abide by thy crib?
Job 39:10
10 Canst thou bind the wild-ox with his band in the furrow? Or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Psalms 29:6
6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild-ox.
Psalms 92:10
10 (92:11) But my horn hast Thou exalted like the horn of the wild-ox; I am anointed with rich oil.
Genesis 1 JPS Tanakh 1917
Exactly.
And the reviewer should not have done the review. He and Hart used to debate Universalism. The reviewer criticizes Hart for not presenting a stronger argument or providing footnote citations. However, as a reader of the book, and the reviewer should have read it as well, Hart writes that the intention of the book is not to present all his arguments AGAIN, this takes a different approach. He has four lengthy meditations on key issues: Who is God?; What is judgment?; What is a person; What is freedom? And any needed citations are included in the text, not as footnotes. Very disingenuous review criticisms. The guy obviously hates Hart.
Yes, universalism was condemned among the 14 anathemas against Origen in the 5th ecumenical council. The 1st anathema condemns universalism in total alongside the doctrine of preexistence of souls & the 14th does also.
1
If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.
14
If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the γνῶσις and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence: let him be anathema.
The Fifteen Anathemas Against Origen – S I L O U A N
Fr Lawrence read his book & seems to take it on point by point. Your inference that he “obviously hates Hart” is cheap slander. Yes, universalism was condemned among the 14 anathemas against Origen in the 5th ecumenical council. The 1st anathema condemns universalism in total alongside the doctrine of preexistence of souls & the 14th does also.
1
If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.
14
If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the γνῶσις and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence: let him be anathema.
https://silouanthompson.net/2019/09/anathemas-against-origen/
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?