One True Church?

[ClementofA]

because it's an Ecumenical Council.

Why should that impress me? Is there any reason i should take that councils' opinions above other councils or creeds or Scripture? How did that council decide things, by majority vote? What if the minority voters were correct in many matters?

and it's not from the Dark Ages. the Byzantine Empire was flourishing at the time.

Flourishing how? Evidently not in doctrine if they rejected universalism which was not rejected in the early creeds of the church.

because we're EASTERN ORTHODOX and the Ecumenical Councils are binding.

Evidently "many" EO do not agree with (a) either your private interpretation of those dark ages councils or (b) they don't consider them binding. Because "many" EO today are universalists. Also it seems some 40% of EO do not believe in "hell", whatever that is supposed to mean. Yet - you - a single individual presume to speak for all?

the only thing you're doing, and have continued to do, is give your interpretation and then just insist that you're right and that we should take you seriously.

Of course i do insist that i'm right about certain things, such as (1) God's existence, (2) Christ being the only way of salvation, (3) universalism being a truth of the Scriptures, etc. Just as others here insist on their "interpretation" of the authority of dark ages councils, prayers to Mary, infallible statements of Popes, etc.

 

[ClementofA]

I don't care what you think if it doesn't fall in line with what Christianity has consistently taught for 2000 years. universalism was no such thing.

Like when, as you said, at "one point after Nicaea, most of Christianity was still Arian"?

There have always been universalists in Christianity for 2000 years. So Christianity has "consistently taught" universalism. Likewise the Scriptures have "consistently taught" universalism. And the earliest creeds were in harmony with universalism.

In the early church universalism was the orthodox (biblical) view & may have been the orthodox (majority) view for centuries (see urls below) prior to the dark ages. It may also be today, or be on the way to becoming so, in this more enlightened "internet age", the majority Christian view (see urls below):

Early Church Writings Fathers:
Church Fathers & Universalism since Early Church times
Indeed Very Many: Universalism in the Early Church
Early church writings re final destiny (paradise, Gospel, incarnation, Jehovah) - Christianity -  - City-Data Forum
Articles on the history of Christian Universalism throughout the centuries
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchab.../©CPC+The+Ancient+History+of+Universalism.pdf
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.shtml
Lawrence R. Farley

 

[ClementofA]

the Scripture wouldn't exist without Councils,

Nonsense. Jesus spoke of Scripture long before any dark ages councils.

So did Paul & others considered apostles.

And what books were considered Scripture has been debated since the earliest times of the church. Today, even, there is no consensus opinion.

they decide by consensus. that's how the council was done in Acts. that's why it should impress.

Scripture speaks of a falling away by many from the truth. So i see no reason to accept the opinion of dark ages councils. Especially when they oppose Scripture, add to the earliest creeds what was not there, and had much opposition in the earlier centuries of the church, including among Early Church Fathers.

 

[Basil the Great]

Why should that impress me? Is there any reason i should take that councils' opinions above other councils or creeds or Scripture? How did that council decide things, by majority vote? What if the minority voters were correct in many matters?



Flourishing how? Evidently not in doctrine if they rejected universalism which was not rejected in the early creeds of the church.



Evidently "many" EO do not agree with (a) either your private interpretation of those dark ages councils or (b) they don't consider them binding. Because "many" EO today are universalists. Also it seems some 40% of EO do not believe in "hell", whatever that is supposed to mean. Yet - you - a single individual presume to speak for all?




Of course i do insist that i'm right about certain things, such as (1) God's existence, (2) Christ being the only way of salvation, (3) universalism being a truth of the Scriptures, etc. Just as others here insist on their "interpretation" of the authority of dark ages councils, prayers to Mary, infallible statements of Popes, etc.

I have also seen polls where many Catholics and Protestants do not believe what their churches teach, so this is not unique to the EO.

 

[ClementofA]

I have also seen polls where many Catholics and Protestants do not believe what their churches teach, so this is not unique to the EO.

I'd like to see those. But i don't doubt it.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed. It is a continuation of a thread that was closed.

​