The Restitution Of All Things

[hedrick]

That's informative. Thanks.
It seems rather spurious that some would claim that the council decisions were made by Jesus Christ, led by the Holy Spirit and infallible. Especially when, as you say, there was much disagreement and division over it. (not a quote)

What you've seen in this discussion is not typical of Orthodox. The infallibility of councils in Orthodox thought is a corollary of the infallibility of the Church. This isn't given to any one individual such as the pope. Councils are viewed as representing the wisdom of the whole Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, and must be accepted by the whole Church.

I think the idea of infallibility is a delusion, whether for the pope, councils, or even Scripture. Christ gave us the authority to act in his name, and to make decisions. But there's no promise of perfection. I think it's mistake to claim for human actions (whether the writing of the Bible, the development of tradition, or the meeting of a council) a perfection only present in God. But people want certainty.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Here is the Answer to Every Universalism Thread :


Thank God The Church already Condemned and Defeated Universalism in 553 A.D. Once And For All at The Fifth Ecumenical Council :



The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen
______________________________________________________________


• 9

"If Anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration will take place of demons and of impious men, Let Him Be Anathema.


• Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.)


CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)

Second Council of Constantinople - Wikipedia

.

Thanks for the large colorful text, however I'm not sure it assists your argument.

I'm no expert in Justinian history, but I know he's remembered for codifying Roman law (including the law merchant), later glossed by renowned advocates including Accursius. Impeccable credentials, and no doubt a real champion of Christian virtue.

Anyhow, is the following clear?

(a) Whether it is settled that the document as ratified by that Council included the anathema you cite, or whether it was later appended or altered.

(b) Alternatively, whether universalism per se was anathematised or just universalism qua Origen, that is, as a component of a particular theology, such as pre-existence of souls.

(c) Whether the decision is reliable in light of pertinent questions casting doubt on the motives and circumstances, such as:

• the elapse of time since Origen's writing (some 350 years),
• the acquiescence to the universalism of other fathers (notably Gregory of Nyssa)
• the attendance to constitute a quorum or otherwise adequate representation at the Council of the church (as it then was).

(d) Further, whether there is scriptural support for the infallibility of either Councils generally, or this Council in the particular circumstances outlined above.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That's good.
It seems the Damnationists claim that God's ways are LOWER than ours.

Well, that's the 'god' of :

• justice, whose punishments vastly outweigh the crime.
• truth, who preaches forgiveness but practises hypocrisy.
• love, who roasts them alive...forever.
• grace, who, well, is kinda petty.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Well, that's the 'god' of :

• justice, whose punishments vastly outweigh the crime.
• truth, who preaches forgiveness but practises hypocrisy.
• love, who roasts them alive...forever.
• grace, who, well, is kinda petty.

Hm, sounds more like a usurping counterfeit who spreads hatred, falsity and pain. Now who could that be?

 

[FineLinen]

It's disarmingly simple and compelling in faith and reason. That's the hallmark of truth, the sword of the gospel, straight up scriptural axiom. Here 'tis:

God created the world. Jesus came to save the world.

That's it. What more is required? The rest is just mechanics. Or rather, it's the breathtaking revelation that overcomes our spirit with His and makes the lame leap for joy like a deer. How He empowers us with humility, how He regenerates us with love, what assurance we have.

God has given us His salvation, and His salvation is His word, and His word is His covenant and, well, let's just say He's a safe pair of hands, through all adversity, in the face of the seemingly impossible - man and his choices. With God, nothing is impossible!

Look here all you damnationists: His ways are higher than our ways. So cry out to Him today, don't hold back and He sure won't.

Dear Shrewd: The One who exceeds all we can ask or even think is the God of unlimited! We the broken wrecks of Adam1 can rest assured the Last Adam exceeds anything & everything resulting from disobedience. EVERYTHING!

"God is not only King and Judge, God is Father – he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family forever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family.

The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God." -Dr. Wm. Barclay-

 

[Shrewd Manager]

"God is not only King and Judge, God is Father – he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family forever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family.

What untold damage has been done to families throughout history with the fractured ECT-driven concept of God as a normative idea of fatherhood - full of protective devoted self-sacrificial commitment and care one moment, a hard magistrate or monstrous psychopath the next.

Thank God for He is good. Otherwise, there'd be no hope for anyone.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Dear Shrewd: The One who exceeds all we can ask or even think is the God of unlimited! We the broken wrecks of Adam1 can rest assured the Last Adam exceeds anything & everything resulting from disobedience. EVERYTHING!

"God is not only King and Judge, God is Father – he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family forever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family.

The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God." -Dr. Wm. Barclay-

And thanks again FL for all your encouragement!

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Thanks for the large colorful text, however I'm not sure it assists your argument.

I'm no expert in Justinian history, but I know he's remembered for codifying Roman law (including the law merchant), later glossed by renowned advocates including Accursius. Impeccable credentials, and no doubt a real champion of Christian virtue.

Anyhow, is the following clear?

(a) Whether it is settled that the document as ratified by that Council included the anathema you cite, or whether it was later appended or altered.

(b) Alternatively, whether universalism per se was anathematised or just universalism qua Origen, that is, as a component of a particular theology, such as pre-existence of souls.

(c) Whether the decision is reliable in light of pertinent questions casting doubt on the motives and circumstances, such as:

• the elapse of time since Origen's writing (some 350 years),
• the acquiescence to the universalism of other fathers (notably Gregory of Nyssa)
• the attendance to constitute a quorum or otherwise adequate representation at the Council of the church (as it then was).

(d) Further, whether there is scriptural support for the infallibility of either Councils generally, or this Council in the particular circumstances outlined above.

The Canons and Decrees of The Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.



.

 

[FineLinen]

And thanks again FL for all your encouragement!

Dear Shrewd: My dear boy from down under. The Living One is the foundation upon which the Hope of the hopeless is rooted. He is the encouragement for all, (the radical ALL) of us broken bedraggled sons of Adam 1. Yup, we are coming Home to Abba.

Every last broken and bruised wreck changed & transformed!

 

[FineLinen]

What untold damage has been done to families throughout history with the fractured ECT-driven concept of God as a normative idea of fatherhood - full of protective devoted self-sacrificial commitment and care one moment, a hard magistrate or monstrous psychopath the next.

Thank God for He is good. Otherwise, there'd be no hope for anyone.

Dear S.M.: Let's all follow the bouncing ball together>>bounce>>bounce>>>bounce

The Lord is good.

God is love.

Love never fails.

His mercy endures forever.

1. The Spirit of the Lord poured out on parched (desert land). -Isa. 32.15-

2. Give them singleness of heart /a new spirit/ a heart of flesh. -Ezek. 11.19-

3. Put My Spirit in you / cause you to walk in My statutes (to carefully observe my ordinances). -Ezek. 37.27-

4. The nations around you shall know I have replanted what was destitute. -Ezek. 37.26-

5. I will pour out My Spirit on ALL PEOPLE. -Joel 2. 8-

"Come then the four winds, O breathe breath on these slain, so they may live."

 

[FineLinen]

The graphic description of how beautiful heaven really is mirrors something that Lenny said when my dad passed.

I was in the hospital with him and the rest of the family in Springfield, Missouri, & Lenny was at our home in Thousand Oaks, CA.

When I called him to tell him that dad had passed he said he knew because he went into heaven with him.

He said dad was a little nervous and didn’t know what to expect so Lenny took him by the hand and went through the gate with him. He said that 1000 words could not describe what he experienced but if he ever did fear death, every bit of that fear is gone after experiencing what it’s like to die and live again.

I feel sure that this is the exact experience of every person who comes into the presence of father God on the other side. It is his presence after all which changes us and conforms us to our new creation self. -Jan Antonsson-

Bless thou the Lord, my soul

And all that is in me;

Gratefully praise His Name,

Remember His glory,

For He hath done wondrous things,

His mercies are ever sure,

His kindness shall be everlasting to those

Who worship His Name.

Jan Antonsson

Flowing in the Spirit

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The Canons and Decrees of The Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.



.

Let's say, arguendo, that 5th Council was infallible and the decrees as we have received them are accurate, I suggest there's still a problem for you relying on the anathema in question.

A letter from the emperor Justinian kicks off the Council, and outlines its purpose and scope. Next comes the Sentence of the Synod, containing some explanatory information regarding the justifications of anathemas that follow. But not a mention of Origen can I find in either the Letter or Sentence.

A full 24 of a total 39 anathemas are reserved solely and exclusively for Origen, 9 purporting to be from Justinian himself! And both of those as 'stand-alone' documents appended to the Capitula. Hm, can some someone check the staple marks align please?

Admittedly this is an abridged version, but I challenge you to find mention of the name Origen (aka 'that Adamantius' lol) amongst the numerous churchmen impugned in either the Letter or Sentence (here or in the full version if you have it):
CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)

Next, the emperor's Letter explicitly states:

"We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith."

St Gregory of Nyssa was renowned for teaching apocatastasis. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apocatastasis
So what gives? Nobody's cursing Greg, rather his universalism has just been given the imprimatur of infallibility by the Letter and everyone's acquiescence thereto. How do you deal with this?

Finally, this here Council's handing out anathemas like confetti. But where are the benedictions? As Origen said, "We were made for blessing, not for cursing". Aye, by their fruits shall ye know them. Of the morass of imprecations from this Council well might we say 'O rose thou art sick puppies.'

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Dear S.M.: Let's all follow the bouncing ball together>>bounce>>bounce>>>bounce

The Lord is good.

God is love.

Love never fails.

His mercy endures forever.

1. The Spirit of the Lord poured out on parched (desert land). -Isa. 32.15-

2. Give them singleness of heart /a new spirit/ a heart of flesh. -Ezek. 11.19-

3. Put My Spirit in you / cause you to walk in My statutes (to carefully observe my ordinances). -Ezek. 37.27-

4. The nations around you shall know I have replanted what was destitute. -Ezek. 37.26-

5. I will pour out My Spirit on ALL PEOPLE. -Joel 2. 8-

"Come then the four winds, O breathe breath on these slain, so they may live."

Catchy and anthemic.

 

[FineLinen]

Catchy and anthemic.

Dear Ben from down under: Where have you been hiding? Anthemic indeed!

 

[FineLinen]

Dear Ben: You are an inspiration. Please stay with us to sing further of the Perfect Father, the A & O of Love, the ta panta of the all

 

[hedrick]

Let's say, arguendo, that 5th Council was infallible and the decrees as we have received them are accurate, I suggest there's still a problem for you relying on the anathema in question.

Right. This whole question is just a mess. Many scholars think the 5th Council approved a list of anathemas against Origen. They are a different list from the ones from the Emperor. First, it's not clear that the council's list was actually issued. Second, it's not clear that they condemned universal restoration. There's an an ambiguous sentence. The clearest condemnation is in the Emperor's anathemas, but it doesn't appear that those were issued by the Council.

Here's the ambiguous sentence: "IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."

The following quotes some of the relevant information: Internet History Sourcebooks. (The same information is available at ccel.org.) I should note that this is not exactly the most recent scholarship.

On Gregory: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there were some claims, e.g. in the 8th Cent, that Gregory actually didn't teach the restoration of all things, but that these ideas were falsely inserted into his teachings. The Catholic Encyclopedia, and I think most others, believe that he actually did teach it. Is it possible that the 5th Council thought he didn't? Of course if they were actually infallible they would know...

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Right. This whole question is just a mess. Many scholars think the 5th Council approved a list of anathemas against Origen. They are a different list from the ones from the Emperor. First, it's not clear that the council's list was actually issued. Second, it's not clear that they condemned universal restoration. There's an an ambiguous sentence. The clearest condemnation is in the Emperor's anathemas, but it doesn't appear that those were issued by the Council.

Here's the ambiguous sentence: "IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."

The following quotes some of the relevant information: Internet History Sourcebooks. (The same information is available at ccel.org.) I should note that this is not exactly the most recent scholarship.

On Gregory: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there were some claims, e.g. in the 8th Cent, that Gregory actually didn't teach the restoration of all things, but that these ideas were falsely inserted into his teachings. The Catholic Encyclopedia, and I think most others, believe that he actually did teach it. Is it possible that the 5th Council thought he didn't? Of course if they were actually infallible they would know...

Those Council docs do seem like a sandy foundation on which to allege any kind of blanket condemnation of apocatastasis as heresy.

Thanks for the link. Just plucking out the eyes, I see the arguments from Vincenzi (as per Hefele):

Vincenzi maintains with great zeal, that the name of Origen is a later insertion in this anathematism, because (a) Theodore Ascidas, the Origenist, was one of the most influential members of the Synod, and would certainly have prevented a condemnation of Origen; further, (b) because in this anathematism only such heretics would be named as had been condemned by one of the first four Ecumenical Synods, which was not the case with Origen; (c) because this anathematism is identical with the tenth in the omologia of the Emperor, but in the latter the name of Origen is lacking; and, finally, (d) because Origen does not belong to the group of heretics to whom this anathematism refers. His errors were quite different.

Hefele then states in his excursus:

To my mind the chief difficulty in supposing these anathematisms to have been adopted by the Fifth Ecumenical is that nothing whatever is said about Origen in the call of the council, nor in any of the letters written in connexion with it; all of which would seem unnatural had there been a long discussion upon the matter, and had such an important dogmatic definition been adopted as the XV. Anathemas, and yet on the other hand there is a vast amount of literature subsequent in date to the council which distinctly attributes a detailed and careful examination of the teaching of Origen and a formal condemnation of him and of it to this council.

Now, I'm not sure of the protocol with these Councils, do you know if the convening letter was an agenda of sorts? It would be rather unfair to ambush a bunch of unprepared attendees with a new motion for condemnation without fair warning..?

From that, can we say even that Origenism was not only 'off the agenda', but any decree was as a matter of Canon law (or basic administrative principles) ultra vires ie 'out of bounds'? Might have to do some more nosing around the scope.

Agree with your view on the ambiguity or uncertainty of whether the 'monstrous restoration' has anything to do with the apocatastatic restoration. Is it the restoration or the belief that is allegedly monstrous? Also, I don't see any suggestion elsewhere that restoration of the impious and the devil is necessarily of a 'monstrous' kind.

Re Gregory, the fact that such rumours were circulating in the 8th century indicates to me the devil was hard at work at the time suppressing universalism. Welcome to the dark ages and here's the pile of bricks we're gonna wall you with?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Dear Ben: You are an inspiration. Please stay with us to sing further of the Perfect Father, the A & O of Love, the ta panta of the all

Say, F.L., do you know about the 'alef tavs' in the Tanakh?

The stone the builders rejected.

How great is our God!

 

[hedrick]

Thanks for the link. Just plucking out the eyes, I see the arguments from Vincenzi (as per Hefele):

Those are good arguments, but it's interesting that fairly shortly after the council people believed it had condemned Origen. I think it's less likely that it condemned restoration, because Gregory and other advocates remained in good standing. But really it's all a guess, nor does the Council seem like something we should give much authority to anyway.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Those are good arguments, but it's interesting that fairly shortly after the council people believed it had condemned Origen. I think it's less likely that it condemned restoration, because Gregory and other advocates remained in good standing. But really it's all a guess, nor does the Council seem like something we should give much authority to anyway.

Agreed. It's not something I have any real interest in, but due to the persistent harping of damnationists on the heresy claim it behooves us to be ready with the rebuttal.

By the way, I think you mentioned you're not a universalist. What is your eschatological position, may I ask?