The Restitution Of All Things

[FineLinen]

Say, F.L., do you know about the 'alef tavs' in the Tanakh? The untranslatable 'word' that is found over 8000 times. It was ditched by the modern translators as a superfluous grammatical device.
But it's demonstrably not, or at least not when employed in many contexts.

It occurs TWICE alone in the seven words of Gen 1:1. That I believe is the revelation to the Jews. There was ongoing controversy and mystery surrounding the alef tavs, as evidenced in the Jewish tradition. Their rabbis believe it's used for amplification.

But it's more than that - it is the mark of the covenant, the plan and its fulfillment. In Paleo-Hebrew, it's depicted by the upside-down 'A' (ie the ox's head) and the 'X' (ie the mark at the other end of the field before you start ploughing).

So the great image of the cross is in itself alef tav:
View attachment 261362
The stone the builders rejected.

How great is our God!

Dear S.M.: I hate to disclose on public boards the depth of what I do not know. I do however very much appreciate you and others for being patient with an old feller in trying to keep me up to snuff.

How great is our God, His ways are past finding out!

 

[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.

Just a little more on this if I may?

This page describes the 3 procedural stages of a Council as convocation, direction and confirmation.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: General Councils
[Excerpts]:
As a matter of fact, none of the eight Eastern Ecumenical synods, with the exception, perhaps, of the fifth, was summoned by the emperor in opposition to the pope. As regards the fifth, the conduct of the emperor caused the legality of the council to be questioned — a proof that the mind of the Church required the pope's consent for the lawfulness of councils.

The material, or business, part of the councils being thus entirely in the hands of the emperors, it was to be expected that the pope was sometimes induced — if not forced — by circumstances to make his authorization suit the imperial wishes and arrangements.

(5) The Fifth General Synod was planned by Justinian I with the consent of Pope Vigilius, but on account of the emperor's dogmatic pretensions, quarrels arose and the pope refused to be present, although repeatedly invited. His Constitutum of 14 May 553, to the effect that he could not consent to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, led to open opposition between pope and council. In the end all was righted by Vigilius approving the synodal decrees.

Hence no conciliar decree is legitimate if carried under protest — or even without the positive consent — of the pope or his legates. The consent of the legates alone, acting without a special order from the pope, is not sufficient to make conciliar decrees at once perfect and operative; what is necessary is the pope's own consent.

Councils over which the pope presides through his legates are not identified with himself in the same degree as the former. They constitute separate, dependent, representative tribunals, whose findings only become final through ratification by the authority for which they act.
[ie express papal ratification required when pope absent, and no infallibility without ratification].

It also clarifies that the Council was convened exclusively for the purposes of resolving the controversy of the 'three chapters', condemning Nestorius and the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia - to assuage the Monophysites.

However, Justinian had been contra-Origen for some time, and had written a book on the subject.

Another page at the same site says this re the condemnation of Origen:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Origen and Origenism

Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:

1. It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.
2. It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated.
3. Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.
4. It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.
5. It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).
6. The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
7. It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.

So, could the waters be any muddier?

 

[hedrick]

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

I'm actually undecided. As a result of all the discussions here, I'm reasonably convinced that Paul and possibly John see universal reconciliation. I'm reasonably certain that 2 Thes and Rev see some as permanently destroyed, followed (at least in the Rev) by universal reconciliation.

It's harder to get a consistent picture from the Synoptics.

My suspicion is that some people will not be saved, but that those who aren't will either not be resurrected at all (Paul seems to reject this, but Luke 20:45 suggests it) or will be destroyed, and it this destruction that is symbolized by fire, the second death etc. I don't see any reason to expect everlasting torment, except possibly Mat 25:46, and that may be non-literal.

This is roughly consistent with N T Wright's treatment in Rethinking the Tradition.

I do not think salvation is limited to Christians, although I don''t think all religions are somehow equally true.

My hope is that destruction is not common. I note that Jesus' examples of judgement all seem to be people opposed either to God or to other humans. He doesn't give any examples of people damned for what Christians normally think of as sin, which is typically sexual.

Traditional theology, particularly in the Reformed tradition, seems to be based on what seems like an odd pattern. Almost everyone agrees that all infants are saved. But as you become adult, at some point Adam hits, and everyone becomes damned unless they are Christians, and for most traditions, Christians of the right sort. I don't think God is prejudiced against adults. I believe the standard outcome remains that you are part of the redeemed, although Christians and non-Christians may be treated differently, since Christians are already in eternal life. But I am very much afraid that some people develop an inherent hostility to God and neighbor.

 

[FineLinen]

Dear S.M.: I hate to disclose on public boards the depth of what I do not know. I do however very much appreciate you and others for being patient with an old feller in trying to keep me up to snuff.

How great is our God, His ways are past finding out!

Please Note

1. ALL Gentiles.

2. ALL Israel.

3. ALL mankind.

Israel=

* A beautiful woman (full of promise).

* Eagerly entered into marriage with God.

* Vowing unto Him as she entered (all will we do & be obedient).

* Was NOT a faithful wife (did not behave as a faithful wife).

* She was disobedient.

* She became worse than a common street harlot.

YET>>>YET>>>YET>>>

Simeon has declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who does all these things."

“Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I'm actually undecided. As a result of all the discussions here, I'm reasonably convinced that Paul and possibly John see universal reconciliation. I'm reasonably certain that 2 Thes and Rev see some as permanently destroyed, followed (at least in the Rev) by universal reconciliation.

It's harder to get a consistent picture from the Synoptics.

My suspicion is that some people will not be saved, but that those who aren't will either not be resurrected at all (Paul seems to reject this, but Luke 20:45 suggests it) or will be destroyed, and it this destruction that is symbolized by fire, the second death etc. I don't see any reason to expect everlasting torment, except possibly Mat 25:46, and that may be non-literal.

This is roughly consistent with N T Wright's treatment in Rethinking the Tradition.

I do not think salvation is limited to Christians, although I don''t think all religions are somehow equally true.

My hope is that destruction is not common. I note that Jesus' examples of judgement all seem to be people opposed either to God or to other humans. He doesn't give any examples of people damned for what Christians normally think of as sin, which is typically sexual.

Traditional theology, particularly in the Reformed tradition, seems to be based on what seems like an odd pattern. Almost everyone agrees that all infants are saved. But as you become adult, at some point Adam hits, and everyone becomes damned unless they are Christians, and for most traditions, Christians of the right sort. I don't think God is prejudiced against adults. I believe the standard outcome remains that you are part of the redeemed, although Christians and non-Christians may be treated differently, since Christians are already in eternal life. But I am very much afraid that some people develop an inherent hostility to God and neighbor.

Thanks for taking the time to reply in some detail Hedrik.

I pray that the Spirit will remove that doubt and 'get you across the line'!

If the difficulty you're having is more to do with phrases and expressions (such as aion, appolumi and olethros), I can put you on to some good messages on Youtube. Bottom line, it's God's war on SIN not on SINNERS, and when sin is destroyed, so is the sinner. But the sinner is only destroyed (or 'dies to self') in the sense that he is miraculously regenerated and reconciled. Hence the meaning of appolumi as both 'destroyed' and 'lost' (eg My son was lost but now he's found). Here's an interesting word study (by a non-universalist): Word study on apollumi, destroy | CARM.org

I like NT Wright mostly for his Christus Victor exegesis (eg How God became King).

Can I put it this way?

Every product comes with a manufacturer's unlimited warranty of fitness for purpose. All products were shown to be defective after introduction to the market, and performed increasingly poorly with the effluxion of time. After a couple of repairs of limited success (that didn't address the root cause), the manufacturer then attended onsite and gave enforceable undertakings that he would perform a total recall of defective product for repair and upgrade, and instituted a management system for preventative maintenance pending said recall.

So, are there any products that are irreparably damaged, or which fall outside the scope of the warranty? You say the fine print may entitle the manufacturer to dishonour a warranty claim in certain cases. I say his paramount concern is his goodwill, not the repair cost or difficulty. His reputation is in fact ameliorated by restoring those products his advisers dismissed as write-offs, even if it costs him dearly. So regardless of the technical exclusions in the terms and conditions, and the advanced state of desuetude of certain products, he prides himself on setting right each and every product he made.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The Canons and Decrees of The Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.



.

Ok here's the simple answer to your claim:

NO PAPAL DECREE confirmed the condemnation of Origen or universalism pursuant to the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Pope Vigilius' Decretal Letter (authority for the subject matter of infallibility) makes no mention of Origen, apokatastasis or restoration. It is concerned with entirely unrelated matters.
Source: Internet History Sourcebooks (ref. penultimate section on page).

So it's a case of case closed, my friend.

Kindly confirm that you will desist in future from making scurrilous claims that universalism is heretical or unorthodox.

 

[FineLinen]

Damnable, Damnation, And Damned - Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words - Bible Dictionary

Blasphemy=

BLASPHEMY By Jonathan Mitchell

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Ok here's the simple answer to your claim:

NO PAPAL DECREE confirmed the condemnation of Origen or universalism pursuant to the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Pope Vigilius' Decretal Letter (authority for the subject matter of infallibility) makes no mention of Origen, apokatastasis or restoration. It is concerned with entirely unrelated matters.
Source: Internet History Sourcebooks (ref. penultimate section on page).

So it's a case of case closed, my friend.

Kindly confirm that you will desist in future from making scurrilous claims that universalism is heretical or unorthodox.

From This Site : Fr. John Whiteford. Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?

We do not believe that everything that anyone happened to say at an Ecumenical Council is infallible, "but we most certainly do believe that the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Are Infallible, and this is because we believe that the Church as a whole, is infallible. Individual members, and even local Churches may err, but it is not possible for the entire Church to teach that which is erroneous—and Ecumenical Councils are certainly an example of what the Church"



.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

From This Site : Fr. John Whiteford. Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?

We do not believe that everything that anyone happened to say at an Ecumenical Council is infallible, "but we most certainly do believe that the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Are Infallible, and this is because we believe that the Church as a whole, is infallible. Individual members, and even local Churches may err, but it is not possible for the entire Church to teach that which is erroneous—and Ecumenical Councils are certainly an example of what the Church"



.

Great. That quote SUPPORTS my previous post. THERE WAS NO DECREE that even touched upon universalism at the Fifth Council. Do you require a diagram, friend?

Infallibility only arises upon the Pope's CONFIRMATION of the acts. No acts touching upon universalism were ratified by Pope Vigilius.

 

[FineLinen]

Thanks for taking the time to reply in some detail Hedrik.

I pray that the Spirit will remove that doubt and 'get you across the line'!

If the difficulty you're having is more to do with phrases and expressions (such as aion, appolumi and olethros), I can put you on to some good messages on Youtube. Bottom line, it's God's war on SIN not on SINNERS, and when sin is destroyed, so is the sinner. But the sinner is only destroyed (or 'dies to self') in the sense that he is miraculously regenerated and reconciled. Hence the meaning of appolumi as both 'destroyed' and 'lost' (eg My son was lost but now he's found). Here's an interesting word study (by a non-universalist): Word study on apollumi, destroy | CARM.org

I like NT Wright mostly for his Christus Victor exegesis (eg How God became King).

Can I put it this way?

Every product comes with a manufacturer's unlimited warranty of fitness for purpose. All products were shown to be defective after introduction to the market, and performed increasingly poorly with the effluxion of time. After a couple of repairs of limited success (that didn't address the root cause), the manufacturer then attended onsite and gave enforceable undertakings that he would perform a total recall of defective product for repair and upgrade, and instituted a management system for preventative maintenance pending said recall.

So, are there any products that are irreparably damaged, or which fall outside the scope of the warranty? You say the fine print may entitle the manufacturer to dishonour a warranty claim in certain cases. I say his paramount concern is his goodwill, not the repair cost or difficulty. His reputation is in fact ameliorated by restoring those products his advisers dismissed as write-offs, even if it costs him dearly. So regardless of the technical exclusions in the terms and conditions, and the advanced state of desuetude of certain products, he prides himself on setting right each and every product he made.

Dear Shrewd: The Father has a complete guarantee with His handiwork (the Plan of all plans). All possible defects have been thoroughly examined & found to be defect free. In short, it is a perfect product completely ready for the creation He has made.

He prides himself on setting right each and every product He made.

 

[FineLinen]

The study by Matt Slick is excellent regarding the nasty apollumi
word of Canon. It falls short unfortunately with his assessment of the non-existent word of "damnation".

Our Father judges in righteousness, love and mercy. The consummation of His judgement is change and transformation, not unending dismay!

 

[FineLinen]

All References To Bazanidzo=

Matt. 8.6

Matt. 8.29

Matt. 14.24

Mark 5.7

Mark 6.48

Luke 8.28

2 Peter 2.8

Rev. 9.5/ 14.10 / 12.2 / 14.10 / 20.10

All uses =

1. Sick of palsy.

2. Ship tossed in waves.

3. Contrary winds.

4. Righteous man vexed in soul.

5. The enemy in the presence of Jesus Christ.

6. Torment.

Basanidzo=

1. To test metals by the touchstone (IOW the purity of gold).

2. To question by applying torture.

3. To vex with grievious pains (in mind & body).

4. To be harassed / distressed.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It is The Great Physician's perfected holy fire cure for what ails ye, 100% guaranteed to restore, regenerate and renovate. It's for purifyin' vivifyin' and glorifyin'. It ain't no snake oil no sir! Comes from the only one you can trust.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Great. That quote SUPPORTS my previous post. THERE WAS NO DECREE that even touched upon universalism at the Fifth Council. Do you require a diagram, friend?

Infallibility only arises upon the Pope's CONFIRMATION of the acts. No acts touching upon universalism were ratified by Pope Vigilius.

The Church doesn't work that way and now we are getting into a different topic entirely.

There were 5 Patriarchal Bishops of The Church Not just one : (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem)



Also, The Idea / Concept / Doctrine that : " 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 " Was Condemned .



.


.

 

[FineLinen]

It is The Great Physician's perfected holy fire cure for what ails ye, 100% guaranteed to restore, regenerate and renovate. It's for purifyin' vivifyin' and glorifyin'. It ain't no snake oil no sir! Comes from the only one you can trust.

Dear Shrewd: The new words we learn on our Christian Forums are staggering. The Physician of all physician's 100 % guarantee to restore, regenerate and renovate the all in His glorious Fire exceeds my wee grasp!

Purifyin >>>Vivifyin>>>Glorifyin

 

[FineLinen]

How many ways can we declare it?

El amor de Dios nunca falla

Guds kärlek misslyckas aldrig

Gottes Liebe versagt nie

Jumalan rakkaus ei koskaan onnistu

L'amour de Dieu ne manque jamais

The Beginning is the Ending!!

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The Church doesn't work that way and now we are getting into a different topic entirely.

There were 5 Patriarchal Bishops of The Church Not just one : (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem)



Also, The Idea / Concept / Doctrine that : " 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 " Was Condemned .



.


.

The Church does indeed work 'that way', at least according to the Catholic Church. Don't try to sidestep it now.

Ecumenical Councils have 3 stages: convocation, direction and confirmation. If the pope does not attend, and the decision has not been pre-agreed, the pope must EXPRESSLY RATIFY any acts in order for them to be considered infallible:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: General Councils.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was convoked by the emperor and was OPPOSED by the pope. The pope therefore did not attend. It took 6 months for the emperor to get the pope to issue the decretal letter by way of Confirmation. Why would Justinian have bothered hassling Vigilius for a decree if it was already a done deal? No, of course the pope's sign-off is essential to giving the acts juridical force.

So you're essentially arguing the Catholic Church can be bound in absentia by decisions of non-Catholic bishops, and be forced to accept those decisions as infallible?? I think you'll find you're dead wrong on this point.

Can you even tell me which bishops attended on behalf of which churches at the Fifth Council? Who in particular do you say condemned the doctrine you cite?

So the point is, even if you can explain why there's a massive disconnect between the convocation letter/ agenda in failing to mention Origen or universalism and the full two thirds of anathemas purporting to address the same (and the onus is on you to bridge this gap), you face the insurmountable problem that those anathemas were never confirmed as canon law or decrees of the Catholic Church.

 

[hedrick]

So you're essentially arguing the Catholic Church can be bound in absentia by decisions of non-Catholic bishops, and be forced to accept those decisions as infallible?? I think you'll find you're dead wrong on this point.

Technically there wasn't a separate Catholic Church in this timeframe. The Pope represented the Western portion of what was in theory still a single Church. But it is clear that you couldn't call something ecumenical if the West wasn't onboard, so the Pope's consent was certainly needed.

Of course today both Catholics and Orthodox claim that they can have ecumenical councils on their own. The Othodox haven't actually done it. Catholics have. The same article you refer to in the Catholic Encyclopedia claims that there are 20 ecumenical councils, so I wouldn't want to depend upon how it defines the criteria for acceptance.

It is clear, however, that in the time frame of the fifth council, the Pope's agreement was needed, just as Eastern agreement was.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Technically there wasn't a separate Catholic Church in this timeframe. The Pope represented the Western portion of what was in theory still a single Church. But it is clear that you couldn't call something ecumenical if the West wasn't onboard, so the Pope's consent was certainly needed.

Of course today both Catholics and Orthodox claim that they can have ecumenical councils on their own. The Othodox haven't actually done it. Catholics have. The same article you refer to in the Catholic Encyclopedia claims that there are 20 ecumenical councils, so I wouldn't want to depend upon how it defines the criteria for acceptance.

It is clear, however, that in the time frame of the fifth council, the Pope's agreement was needed, just as Eastern agreement was.

It's just commonsense and comity. I'd be confident that express papal confirmation would be required in a situation of 'in absentia' and disputed matters. Was the 'first among equals' doctrine generally accepted at that stage do you know?

 

[FineLinen]

Question=

Do you think the Master of Reconciliation thinks more highly of broken pieces of fish and bread that nothing be lost/apollumi, but the ones for whom He makes atonement shall be lost?

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes into Him shall not be apollumi...."

God's Utter Extravagance=

"To say that sin, assuming it to be opposed to God, has the power of creating a world antagonistic to God as everlasting as He is, attributes to it a power equal at least to His; since according to this view, souls whom God willed to be saved, and for whom Christ died, are held in bondage under the power of sin for ever; and all this in opposition to the Word of God, which says that God's Son was "manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil..." -Andrew Jukes (The Restitution of all Things)

"To go on punishing for ever, simply for punishment's sake, shocks every sentiment of justice. And the case is so much worse when the punishment is really the prolongation of evil, when it is but making evil endless." -Thomas Allin, Christ Triumphant-

"The almighty maker of souls has various methods of restoring them to the divine image; it is impossible his power can fail; it is impossible for his image to be entirely obliterated; it is impossible that misery, sin, and discord can be eternal! –Alison R. Cockburn-