Metropolitan Kallistos, David Bentley Hart, Universalism, and the Church of the East

[ArmyMatt]

But He is bound by his own statements and teachings. If He says there is no salvation outside belief in Christ, then it is true. God is not morally defective like degenerate human beings. He is bound by His own nature and cannot lie. (Titus 1:2, Heb. 6:18; Num. 3:19).

and yet we know of unbelievers/heretics/heterodox Christians who have died in sin, been seen in torment, and then through the prayers of the Church been released.

 

[JSRG]

You're caught-up on externals. As previously noted, Metropolitan Kalliostos Ware was not Orthodox, for an Orthodox Christian accepts Orthodox teaching. Kallistos Ware held to the super-ecumenist heresy of religious pluralism and religious indifferentism, which is coming out of the Vatican. The New Catholic Catechism in Part One, Section 847, states that non-Catholics who “seek God with a sincere heart” and “try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience,” will “achieve eternal salvation.” This is a rejection of the Apostolic Faith and the Tradition of the Church.

I feel that it's important that the entire 847 be stated, rather than three select parts of it with the intervening text removed, as you remove some qualifying information and also cut out the "may" in "may achieve eternal salvation" to replace with a "will" (may and will have different meanings). Here's the full 847, plus the preceding 846 and 848 for better context:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

You might still disagree with what it says, but I think it's important to show what it actually says.

 

[The Liturgist]

You're caught-up on externals.

On the contrary, I am seeking to avoid calling into question the membership of a beloved Orthodox bishop in the Orthodox church on the basis of an authority that I do not think you or I posess according to my own understanding of Holy Tradition or the canons of the Pedalion.

Also, in a previous post you accused me of an argument from silence fallacy concerning Theistic Evolution, which I disagree with; I believe it is not fallacious to assert that the majority of the Fathers of the Church did not disagree with Theistic Evolution since the scientific fact of Evolution had not at the time been demonstrated, and what is more there are various models that can be used to assert that the events in Genesis did occur as written without contradicting the established scientific principle of evolution (for example, one can assert that Adam and Eve were created as if they had evolved from primates, and I myself lean towards such a view in the case of Genesis 2; Genesis 1 on the other hand is somewhat unique in that it is the only religous text in existence which can be reconciled with our current scientific understanding of how the universe began, and this is a scientific understanding arrived at only very recently.

However, on the subject of logical fallacies, certain arguments you present are consistent with a category of informal logical fallacy, as I believe i mentioned to you previously, the appeal to purity, known colloquially as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Also, I really doubt that there are as many Orthodox priests and bishops who hold Tradition in contempt as you suggest. Whether or not they actually hate Orthodoxy is something only God is in a position to know, and we have to trust God to judge them, but Orthodox laity such as yourself can refuse attempts at altering the faith via a latrocinium, as happened with the Council of Florence, and indeed one could argue that it was the concerns that the laity had over what might have happened at the Council of Crete that, in combination with controversial statements made by the Ecumenical Patriarchate on various issues, resulted in so many canonical Orthodox churches simply not participating, and thus greatly limited the scope of action of that council.

 

[Euthymios]

On the contrary, I am seeking to avoid calling into question the membership of a beloved Orthodox bishop in the Orthodox church on the basis of an authority that I do not think you or I posess according to my own understanding of Holy Tradition or the canons of the Pedalion.

Also, in a previous post you accused me of an argument from silence fallacy concerning Theistic Evolution, which I disagree with; I believe it is not fallacious to assert that the majority of the Fathers of the Church did not disagree with Theistic Evolution since the scientific fact of Evolution had not at the time been demonstrated, and what is more there are various models that can be used to assert that the events in Genesis did occur as written without contradicting the established scientific principle of evolution (for example, one can assert that Adam and Eve were created as if they had evolved from primates, and I myself lean towards such a view in the case of Genesis 2; Genesis 1 on the other hand is somewhat unique in that it is the only religous text in existence which can be reconciled with our current scientific understanding of how the universe began, and this is a scientific understanding arrived at only very recently.

However, on the subject of logical fallacies, certain arguments you present are consistent with a category of informal logical fallacy, as I believe i mentioned to you previously, the appeal to purity, known colloquially as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Also, I really doubt that there are as many Orthodox priests and bishops who hold Tradition in contempt as you suggest. Whether or not they actually hate Orthodoxy is something only God is in a position to know, and we have to trust God to judge them, but Orthodox laity such as yourself can refuse attempts at altering the faith via a latrocinium, as happened with the Council of Florence, and indeed one could argue that it was the concerns that the laity had over what might have happened at the Council of Crete that, in combination with controversial statements made by the Ecumenical Patriarchate on various issues, resulted in so many canonical Orthodox churches simply not participating, and thus greatly limited the scope of action of that council.

Where is the evidence for the claim that we don't have the authority to question the membership of a bishop, and that I am giving my own understanding? This is really simple. Do you agree with Kallistos' statements or not? You are now guilty of the fallacy of suppressed evidence, because you simply ignore the sources I cited, which prove that Kallistos did not hold to the Orthodox faith.

In all charity, I believe you have come under the influence of modernist clergy and were never properly catechized or rooted in the Orthodox faith. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware condemned himself by his own words. I even cited the sources. The Fathers teach that all Christians, whether laity or clergy are obligated to guard the faith against unworthy bishops. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware directly contradicted Orthodox Tradition and teaching on several key issues, which places him outside the Orthodox faith and Church.

When you claim that the majority of the Fathers did not disagree with Theistic Evolution, you argue again from silence (a fallacy) and shifted the burden of proof. It is incumbent on YOU to show that they believed in Theistic Evolution. There is absolutely no evidence that any Church Father believed in Theistic Evolution, but we do have lots of evidence that they didn't believe in it. Your position implies that the Tradition of the Church needs to change and be updated. This is MODERNISM.

Except for Blessed Augustine (who believed everything was created at once, either actually or potentially), the Church Fathers unanimously believed that the earth was created in six natural days.

The literal and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11 was held by all Christians and Jews until the time of so-called enlightenment in the eighteenth century.

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all the popes, bishops, and faithful for nineteen centuries believed that God created Adam immediately from the dust of the earth.

St. Basil said that God made Adam directly from the earth to distinguish him from animals.

Adam was created from the earth according to Saints Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene, Ephraim, Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine.

As for your claim that evolution is a fact, you show that you are not an Orthodox Christian, because Orthodoxy has never believed this. At no time did the Fathers and saints ever believe in Theistic Evolution. We only see it today among modernists who are ashamed of their faith and caught-up in human respect. Modern science has refuted the theory of Evolution. I can recommend several resources by top scientists.

With regard to your accusation of my alleged appeal to purity, you misunderstand this fallacy, and never actually showed that I committed it.

 

[Euthymios]

Also, there's no such thing as a pious Democrat. The claim is a contradiction, because the Democratic party accepts concepts diametrically opposed to the Christian ethos. The heart of any Democrat is not right with God, and anyone who is pro-choice is a literal enemy of God and an enemy of humanity. The older I get, the more I realize that there are a lot of very sick people in the world (even in churches), and why so many people end in hell.

 

[Light of the East]

and yet we know of unbelievers/heretics/heterodox Christians who have died in sin, been seen in torment, and then through the prayers of the Church been released.

Which is a most hopefully thing in the reality of God's mercy.

BUT . . .

that in no way implies that we should be slack in our cooperation with God in our salvation. This is one thing that very much troubles me in those who are loudly running around proclaiming Universal Restoration. They give no warnings of the torments that wait for those who refuse to cooperate with God's mercy through the ascetic gifts the Church has given mankind.

There will be . . . hell to pay for them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There will be . . . hell to pay for them.

and that hell might never end

 

[ArmyMatt]

Also, there's no such thing as a pious Democrat. The claim is a contradiction, because the Democratic party accepts concepts diametrically opposed to the Christian ethos. The heart of any Democrat is not right with God, and anyone who is pro-choice is a literal enemy of God and an enemy of humanity. The older I get, the more I realize that there are a lot of very sick people in the world (even in churches), and why so many people end in hell.

what about some of those blue dog democrats who are pro life, believe sex is between a man and woman within marriage?

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

Please remember that it is not allowable to "call out" members for being or not being a part of a faith community/denomination. We don't require credentials here, so it is up to members to let us know how they identify. Also, please keep the conversation on topic and in the bounds that the OP requests.

ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[Euthymios]

what about some of those blue dog democrats who are pro life, believe sex is between a man and woman within marriage?

Are these democrats opposed to abortion though? Being pro-life doesn't necessarily mean a person is completely against abortion. There are a lot of moral and ethical problems with the democratic party as a whole.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Are these democrats opposed to abortion though? Being pro-life doesn't necessarily mean a person is completely against abortion. There are a lot of moral and ethical problems with the democratic party as a whole.

yes, I know many democrats who are anti-sexual anarchy, fully pro life, etc.

 

[rusmeister]

ADMIN HAT ON

Please remember that it is not allowable to "call out" members for being or not being a part of a faith community/denomination. We don't require credentials here, so it is up to members to let us know how they identify. Also, please keep the conversation on topic and in the bounds that the OP requests.

ADMIN HAT OFF

On the first observation only: But if a person comes in here openly denying established dogma of the faith, insisting that Christ is not the Son of God, or whatever, we have to “call them out” and assert that their claims or teaching is not Orthodox. We’ve been around this tree before. There are some non-negotiables that individuals may not contradict.

Topics Requiring Special Consideration

Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage: The Ancient Way forum allows homosexuality and same sex marriage to be discussed, without promotion*, in it's main forum and sub forums. The official statement regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage from the Assemby of Canonical Orthodox Bishops is as...

www.christianforums.com

That said, yes, we do try to be tolerant. I think the best Orthodox attitude towards those who have not yet realized/learned something is to hold an attitude of patience: ”You’ll understand when you are older.”

 

[tampasteve]

On the first observation only: But if a person comes in here openly denying established dogma of the faith, insisting that Christ is not the Son of God, or whatever, we have to “call them out” and assert that their claims or teaching is not Orthodox. We’ve been around this tree before. There are some non-negotiables that individuals may not contradict.

That is what the "Report" button is for, we take violations to the Statement of Faith seriously.