The True Church? I'm Disillusioned.

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="ArmyMatt, a few things.

Let me start by working backwards from the last post to the first. I will also break down what you said into smaller posts so we don't get overwhelmed.

these discussions really remind me of when I would speak to Jehovah's Witnesses. it's like when they go home, they forget/ignore any point you made, and bring up the same stuff that was already addressed.

Honestly, I feel your pain, having spoken with Jehovah's Witnesses many times myself. Discussions of the Trinity and salvation seem to go nowhere, as do the Early Fathers. I'm not trying to be intransigent here. I am trying to make sense out of something that makes complete and whole sense when I look at the "Big Picture," that picture being God's purposes, His character, the fact that He is love, and His will to save all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4)

Having said that, I did have an "ah ha" moment this morning in regards to something you said. You know, in talking with others, it is often hard to put yourself into their shoes and think as they are thinking. But something you said here triggered a thought this morning and I realize (I think) how you are viewing this.
It was this statement:

Yes, the last enemy that is destroyed is death. which means that eternal light and life torment those who desire darkness and death.

What I see now is that the view you have is that since all are returned to God and in His presence eternally (Christ having bound the "strong man" and plundered his house), there is no longer any separation of men from God (which is death, shown in the driving out of Adam and Eve from the Garden, the place of God's presence). All are in the presence of God, therefore, death really is vanquished.

Am I correct so far?

It seems that in your view, death and the torment of God's presence are two entirely different things? Christ has ended the separation from God of all mankind, all are returned to God, thus ending death (separation), but not all will find it pleasurable as do the saints.

I cut this short for reply.

PS My view is that if souls are still suffering, then in some form, death is still reigning, or at least, the effects of sin. Perhaps you could clarify this for me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

QUOTE="ArmyMatt, a few things.

Let me start by working backwards from the last post to the first. I will also break down what you said into smaller posts so we don't get overwhelmed.

these discussions really remind me of when I would speak to Jehovah's Witnesses. it's like when they go home, they forget/ignore any point you made, and bring up the same stuff that was already addressed.

Honestly, I feel your pain, having spoken with Jehovah's Witnesses many times myself. Discussions of the Trinity and salvation seem to go nowhere, as do the Early Fathers. I'm not trying to be intransigent here. I am trying to make sense out of something that makes complete and whole sense when I look at the "Big Picture," that picture being God's purposes, His character, the fact that He is love, and His will to save all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4)

Having said that, I did have an "ah ha" moment this morning in regards to something you said. You know, in talking with others, it is often hard to put yourself into their shoes and think as they are thinking. But something you said here triggered a thought this morning and I realize (I think) how you are viewing this.
It was this statement:

Yes, the last enemy that is destroyed is death. which means that eternal light and life torment those who desire darkness and death.

What I see now is that the view you have is that since all are returned to God and in His presence eternally (Christ having bound the "strong man" and plundered his house), there is no longer any separation of men from God (which is death, shown in the driving out of Adam and Eve from the Garden, the place of God's presence). All are in the presence of God, therefore, death really is vanquished.

Am I correct so far?

It seems that in your view, death and the torment of God's presence are two entirely different things? Christ has ended the separation from God of all mankind, all are returned to God, thus ending death (separation), but not all will find it pleasurable as do the saints.

I cut this short for reply.

PS My view is that if souls are still suffering, then in some form, death is still reigning, or at least, the effects of sin. Perhaps you could clarify this for me.

yes, the eternal death of hell is the relational separation between the sinner and God, but not God and the sinner. what makes hell actually hell is the sinner in vain trying to flee God's love which is what the sinner will confront unto eternity.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="ArmyMatt

for five, the teaching of apokatastasis as you and DBH define it isn't in line with God's love, because it was condemned.

for six, for the umpteenth millionth time, the punishment is self inflicted. God simply pours out His love on the sinner as He does on the saint.

This is where I am really confused. Could we parse this a bit? I have never heard any definition of love, whether it be from Scripture or in the world, that defines it as anything other than not only seeking, but doing that which is best for the other.

Now in regards to the first response I made, you could surely say that God has done the best for "the other" (mankind) by coming in Christ and restoring all mankind to Himself. Certainly the BEST any soul could have is to be owned by and in the presence of God. He is the telos of our existence, the desire of our hearts.

Yet, if that presence causes pain, even if not willingly inflicted (as the RC Church and Protestantis teach) but is a result of this doing of the best to the other, is it still really "the best" for that soul? I doubt that God sees it that way, i.e. that the souls which are suffering because of their sin are in the best possible state they could be in. I cannot imagine God thinking that way of suffering when there is something much better - union in love with Him.

So then it seems to bring into the equation whether God will attempt to rescue them from this situation. If I have understood correctly your position (please verify) it is that God cannot because sinners, once dead, have set their will in concrete against Him for all eternity, and there is simply nothing that God can do in this situation. Some people will say that God must respect the free-will choice of the sinner to continue in hatred and anger against Him for all eternity.

I see this as an attack on His omnipotence (His power to bring them to change) and His omniscience (His wisdom to find that course of action which will bring them to their senses). And finally, in this post, I question the statement that sinners, once dead, cannot change, for not only do we pray for the dead, but we simply have no revelation from Scripture otherwise.

Again, not wanting to go long, let me stop here.

 

[Light of the East]

yes, the eternal death of hell is the relational separation between the sinner and God, but not God and the sinner. what makes hell actually hell is the sinner in vain trying to flee God's love which is what the sinner will confront unto eternity.

Okay. So I do understand that in this sense, yes, death is conquered. The separation is over. The Garden of Eden is open again, the flaming sword has been sheathed by the angel, and all who will may enter into it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

QUOTE="ArmyMatt

for five, the teaching of apokatastasis as you and DBH define it isn't in line with God's love, because it was condemned.

for six, for the umpteenth millionth time, the punishment is self inflicted. God simply pours out His love on the sinner as He does on the saint.

This is where I am really confused. Could we parse this a bit? I have never heard any definition of love, whether it be from Scripture or in the world, that defines it as anything other than not only seeking, but doing that which is best for the other.

Now in regards to the first response I made, you could surely say that God has done the best for "the other" (mankind) by coming in Christ and restoring all mankind to Himself. Certainly the BEST any soul could have is to be owned by and in the presence of God. He is the telos of our existence, the desire of our hearts.

Yet, if that presence causes pain, even if not willingly inflicted (as the RC Church and Protestantis teach) but is a result of this doing of the best to the other, is it still really "the best" for that soul? I doubt that God sees it that way, i.e. that the souls which are suffering because of their sin are in the best possible state they could be in. I cannot imagine God thinking that way of suffering when there is something much better - union in love with Him.

So then it seems to bring into the equation whether God will attempt to rescue them from this situation. If I have understood correctly your position (please verify) it is that God cannot because sinners, once dead, have set their will in concrete against Him for all eternity, and there is simply nothing that God can do in this situation. Some people will say that God must respect the free-will choice of the sinner to continue in hatred and anger against Him for all eternity.

I see this as an attack on His omnipotence (His power to bring them to change) and His omniscience (His wisdom to find that course of action which will bring them to their senses). And finally, in this post, I question the statement that sinners, once dead, cannot change, for not only do we pray for the dead, but we simply have no revelation from Scripture otherwise.

Again, not wanting to go long, let me stop here.

it's not an attack on His omniscience or His omnipotence. He is, because He is love, free to respect our choice to eternally reject Him should we choose. that says nothing about His power or knowledge.

and it could certainly be the best for there to be an eternal hell, if it is better for man to maintain his freedom than to reject it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Okay. So I do understand that in this sense, yes, death is conquered. The separation is over. The Garden of Eden is open again, the flaming sword has been sheathed by the angel, and all who will may enter into it.

correct, that's why there are no doors on the pearly gates.

 

[Not David]

This exact topic was on another thread, and I posted this:

"The real question is what makes David Bentley Hart any better than Fr. Feeney?

Fr. Feeney was a Catholic priest who believed that anybody who did not receive a water baptism was going to burn in hell forever, and if you would have been saved, God would have provided you the means to receive the water.

Ignoring the whole corpus of Catholic tradition which explicitly stated the opposite - that it was possible to be saved without a water baptism - especially given the fact that some Saints have been canonized being Catechumens who were martyred - he paraded this way to his death, and any time he was questioned, he just assumed the worst in people and used appeals to emotions and juvenile ad-hominem attacks to justify himself. For instance, he would believe that anyone who didn't think likewise was just a "compromiser" who "didn't care about spreading the Gospel" and that those who opposed him were "Modernists."

David Bentley Hart is no different. He's just some dude who questions the whole of Orthodox Tradition against the countless testimonies of Saints, Scriptures, and Liturgical readings which do explicate the existence of an eternal hell, and whenever he attacks someone, he assumes their worst intentions as "a child who wants people to burn in hell."

He'll be remembered like Fr. Feeney, as just some rebel pseudo-theologian that nobody remembers, except petulant immaturity for those who do remember."

Is his commentary of the New Testament wrong?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is his commentary of the New Testament wrong?

if you mean DBH, yes. not only is his premise wrong (a translation that doesn't assume dogma, whatever that means), but he messes up his OT references and the Greek.

 

[Rayanne]

Thank you, "Light of the East," for providing such valuable information for us.

"ArmyMatt" - I challenge the valuing of libertarian free will that is present in your posts, and I ask you whether you are overvaluing it. An excellent book that addresses this is Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, which is a compilation of essays on this topic that present cases both for and against Universal Salvation. The arguments for Universal Salvation are much better than the arguments against it. The book contains an essay by Universalist Eric Reitan, who delivers a devastating philosophical critique of libertarian freedom.

I also challenge your statements that Universalists don't know what love is. I think that the New Testament (and Jesus' words in particular) make it clear what love is - it's something we can relate to. The love of God for all people is similar to the love of a parent for their children (not offering them a stone when they ask for bread). It's not something foreign to us. I would certainly never want the "libertarian free will" of any creature to have the power to consign him/her to eternal torment. I would never want my own freedom to have that capacity either. Certainly, love does not "require" that someone's "libertarian free will" have the horrific (not to mention irrational) power to determine an eternal and unchangeable fate. Human beings are clearly in the business of rescuing people who are attempting to destroy themselves. We attempt to stop people on the brink of suicide - we even hospitalize them against their will. We have interventions to get people into rehab to forceably stop their addictions. Is that not loving? Is God any different from us in this regard? No... God is MORE loving than we are.

As for your continually referring to the consensus of the church fathers, I refer you back to my original posts, which contain questions that have yet to be answered on this board. How can we verify the truth of certain Orthodox teachings (such as belief in eternal hell or the belief that same-sex attraction is an "evil" passion)? What makes any source of Orthodox teaching "infallible" if we don't hold to the infallibility of any particular church father? Can it really be "consensus," when the original consensus of Christians was NOT belief in eternal damnation? Or is it the consensus of Orthodox Christians now in modern times that is the "infallible" source of truth? Because Pew Research says that only 59% of Orthodox Christians believe in hell (but that doesn't mean all 59% believe hell is eternal). What determines infallible authority in the Orthodox church? Can anyone answer this?
Most Americans believe in heaven … and hell

Thankfully, I have spoken with a trusted person who assured me there are Orthodox Christians who are universalists - including professors and clergy - and that I can absolutely be an Orthodox Christian and a Universalist. I can also be an Orthodox Christian and believe that LGBTQ people are misjudged by traditional churches. I am certainly not alone in this. I'm thankful to be able to be honest and open-minded and also continued to be an Orthodox Christian.

Rayanne

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you, "Light of the East," for providing such valuable information for us.

"ArmyMatt" - I challenge the valuing of libertarian free will that is present in your posts, and I ask you whether you are overvaluing it. An excellent book that addresses this is Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, which is a compilation of essays on this topic that present cases both for and against Universal Salvation. The arguments for Universal Salvation are much better than the arguments against it. The book contains an essay by Universalist Eric Reitan, who delivers a devastating philosophical critique of libertarian freedom.

I also challenge your statements that Universalists don't know what love is. I think that the New Testament (and Jesus' words in particular) make it clear what love is - it's something we can relate to. The love of God for all people is similar to the love of a parent for their children (not offering them a stone when they ask for bread). It's not something foreign to us. I would certainly never want the "libertarian free will" of any creature to have the power to consign him/her to eternal torment. I would never want my own freedom to have that capacity either. Certainly, love does not "require" that someone's "libertarian free will" have the horrific (not to mention irrational) power to determine an eternal and unchangeable fate. Human beings are clearly in the business of rescuing people who are attempting to destroy themselves. We attempt to stop people on the brink of suicide - we even hospitalize them against their will. We have interventions to get people into rehab to forceably stop their addictions. Is that not loving? Is God any different from us in this regard? No... God is MORE loving than we are.

As for your continually referring to the consensus of the church fathers, I refer you back to my original posts, which contain questions that have yet to be answered on this board. How can we verify the truth of certain Orthodox teachings (such as belief in eternal hell or the belief that same-sex attraction is an "evil" passion)? What makes any source of Orthodox teaching "infallible" if we don't hold to the infallibility of any particular church father? Can it really be "consensus," when the original consensus of Christians was NOT belief in eternal damnation? Or is it the consensus of Orthodox Christians now in modern times that is the "infallible" source of truth? Because Pew Research says that only 59% of Orthodox Christians believe in hell (but that doesn't mean all 59% believe hell is eternal). What determines infallible authority in the Orthodox church? Can anyone answer this?
Most Americans believe in heaven … and hell

Thankfully, I have spoken with a trusted person who assured me there are Orthodox Christians who are universalists - including professors and clergy - and that I can absolutely be an Orthodox Christian and a Universalist. I can also be an Orthodox Christian and believe that LGBTQ people are misjudged by traditional churches. I am certainly not alone in this. I'm thankful to be able to be honest and open-minded and also continued to be an Orthodox Christian.

Rayanne

well, the 5th, 6th, Quinesext, and 7th Councils all condemn universalism, and those are infallible.

for two, I didn't say that universalists don't know what love is, I said DBH doesn't make the argument of what love is from a theological POV. and yes, God is more loving than us, which is why universalism is false.

you might not be alone in your thinking, but that's irrelevant. Arius wasn't alone in his thinking, but that doesn't make him any less a heretic.

 

[Lukaris]

The moral code in the OT is the same in the NT but the ultimate enforcement of it has been taken out of man’s hands because of true justice cannot be administered by fallen humans on life or death matters.

Read Leviticus 18, Leviticus 19, Leviticus 20 the immorality mentioned is still condemned by the Lord ( see Matthew 15:16-20 ). Clearly the Sermons on the Mount & Plane have forbidden punishments like stoning because the Lord is calling all to repentance ( Matthew 4:17). Romans 1 sums up the same moral code the Lord preached in His Gospel. Romans 2 teaches that any individual who at least keeps the moral code will be accepted by the Lord ( as was recognized in the OT per Psalms 15 etc.). The warnings of our fallen state are reiterated in Romans 3 despite some hope offered in the 2nd chapter of Romans.

The Lord said for us to keep His commandments ( Matthew 19:16-19 etc.). St. Paul reiterates this in Romans 13:8-10 & what the preacher says in Ecclesiastes 12 is what the Lord ultimately preaches & judges us by in John 5:22-30. While hell is not as easily guaranteed like much western Christianity used to espouse, it is not to be denied.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="ArmyMatt

it's not an attack on His omniscience or His omnipotence. He is, because He is love, free to respect our choice to eternally reject Him should we choose. that says nothing about His power or knowledge.

Love NEVER "respects" a choice for self-destruction!!

What kind of "love" is that???

I find it appalling how those who oppose Apokatastasis are determined to change the meaning of words in order to shoehorn them into their theology.

It most certainly is an attack on his omniscience, for you are saying that the God who IS love, would act in a manner inconsistent with love as if He wakes up one morning and realizes that He intellectually missed something in the creation narrative.

It also is an attack on his omnipotence to say that He is so helpless that He cannot find a way to lovingly change the mind of someone who hates Him. If this was true, I would still be running around doing drugs, getting drunk on weekends, and committing fornication. I was a dedicated atheist, hedonist, and God-hater, and yet here I am, actively seeking the Lord and trying to find out truth about Him, something I once upon a time not only did not wish to do, but actively opposed and made fun of with hatred in my heart.

You need to read this to understand just how God changed my mind without violating my free-will. That which I swore I would never do - believe in God, serve Him, turn from sin, etc - I now do of my own volition.

God’s Hand & Our Free Will

and it could certainly be the best for there to be an eternal hell, if it is better for man to maintain his freedom than to reject it.

As I state in the blog piece, man's free-will does not have to be violated to have him change. Mine wasn't.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="Lukaris

No one denies it. The difference is between understanding hell (i.e. the experience of God's love as torment) as never-ending, purposeless revenge on the part of an offended deity, or as a restorative scourging with the purpose of repentance and restoration of the soul to the telos for which it was created.

 

[Light of the East]

Father Matt -

In thinking about our conversation over the last couple of days, I do have a concern. One cannot simply pick and choose which one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and which of the canons he will obey and be considered a good an obedient Christian. This is giving me some pause to reflect.

At the same time, I wonder if the Roman culture of the Empire before its fall could possibly have some influence on the thinking of the men who were involved with doing theology. I know I read somewhere that Augustine lauded certain things that Plato wrote and said they were good for Christians to believe. How much of that, I wonder, comes into play in the thinking of men in council?

You mention that a council is infallible. This seems to indicate to me that the Holy Spirit overrides any and all intellectual and emotional considerations of our shared fallen humanity.

This is something I will be thinking about a lot. As I said in the begininng, it is not a good thing to set onesself up against a council of the Church

 

[Rayanne]

Yet, I wonder how the Holy Spirit can be behind Anathemas? Also, how can the Holy Spirit be behind canons that we no longer follow?

Canons of the Holy Fathers (Below I have pasted just a few examples of canons that I am not aware of being followed any longer)

Canon IX.

All those faithful who enter and listen to the Scriptures, but do not stay for prayer and Holy Communion must be excommunicated, on the ground that they are causing the Church a breach of order.

Canon X.

If anyone pray in company with one who has been excommunicated, he shall be excommunicated himself.

Canon XI.

If anyone who is a clergyman pray in company with a deposed clergyman, he shall be deposed too.

Canon LIV.

If any clergyman be caught eating in a tavern or any restaurant where intoxicating beverages are served, let him be excommunicated, except only in case it happens to be at a wayside in where he has put up for the night by necessity.

Canon LXIX.

If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or subdeacon, or Anagnost, or Psalt fails to fast throughout the forty days of Holy Lent, or on Wednesday, or on Friday, let him be deposed from office. Unless he be prevented from doing so by reason of bodily illness. If, on the other hand, a layman fails to do so, let him be excommunicated.

Then we see here:

THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

Canon I.

WE have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.

________________________

My question: Are the councils infallible when they contain canons we no longer follow, plus anathemas, plus a statement in another council that canons we no longer follow "should remain in force?"

I'm genuinely interested in finding an answer to this question.

Thanks,

Rayanne

 

[ArmyMatt]

QUOTE="ArmyMatt

it's not an attack on His omniscience or His omnipotence. He is, because He is love, free to respect our choice to eternally reject Him should we choose. that says nothing about His power or knowledge.

Love NEVER "respects" a choice for self-destruction!!

What kind of "love" is that???

I find it appalling how those who oppose Apokatastasis are determined to change the meaning of words in order to shoehorn them into their theology.

It most certainly is an attack on his omniscience, for you are saying that the God who IS love, would act in a manner inconsistent with love as if He wakes up one morning and realizes that He intellectually missed something in the creation narrative.

It also is an attack on his omnipotence to say that He is so helpless that He cannot find a way to lovingly change the mind of someone who hates Him. If this was true, I would still be running around doing drugs, getting drunk on weekends, and committing fornication. I was a dedicated atheist, hedonist, and God-hater, and yet here I am, actively seeking the Lord and trying to find out truth about Him, something I once upon a time not only did not wish to do, but actively opposed and made fun of with hatred in my heart.

You need to read this to understand just how God changed my mind without violating my free-will. That which I swore I would never do - believe in God, serve Him, turn from sin, etc - I now do of my own volition.

God’s Hand & Our Free Will

and it could certainly be the best for there to be an eternal hell, if it is better for man to maintain his freedom than to reject it.

As I state in the blog piece, man's free-will does not have to be violated to have him change. Mine wasn't.

except that it's not self-destruction, God floods the sinner with His love, the same as the saint. no one is changing the meaning of anything.

it's not inconsistent with omniscience. He doesn't act against His love. as I said before, He floods His love upon the sinner as He does the saint. He acts in exactly the same way toward the sinner as He does the saint. so He does not miss anything.

neither is it an attack on His omnipotence. to lovingly change the mind of the other means you respect their freedom to choose your love or reject it. if God lovingly loves us, He allows us to reject Him. His love for all of us is eternal and infinite.

your blog post is irrelevant to the discussion, since it doesn't deal with what we are dealing with. just because YOU repented doesn't mean everyone will.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Father Matt -

In thinking about our conversation over the last couple of days, I do have a concern. One cannot simply pick and choose which one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and which of the canons he will obey and be considered a good an obedient Christian. This is giving me some pause to reflect.

At the same time, I wonder if the Roman culture of the Empire before its fall could possibly have some influence on the thinking of the men who were involved with doing theology. I know I read somewhere that Augustine lauded certain things that Plato wrote and said they were good for Christians to believe. How much of that, I wonder, comes into play in the thinking of men in council?

You mention that a council is infallible. This seems to indicate to me that the Holy Spirit overrides any and all intellectual and emotional considerations of our shared fallen humanity.

This is something I will be thinking about a lot. As I said in the begininng, it is not a good thing to set onesself up against a council of the Church

actually, I quoted one canon, one Synodal statement (which is not optional), and one letter of repentance.

Plato was also very much loved by the East, particularly the Alexandrian school of thought.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yet, I wonder how the Holy Spirit can be behind Anathemas? Also, how can the Holy Spirit be behind canons that we no longer follow?

Canons of the Holy Fathers (Below I have pasted just a few examples of canons that I am not aware of being followed any longer)

Canon IX.

All those faithful who enter and listen to the Scriptures, but do not stay for prayer and Holy Communion must be excommunicated, on the ground that they are causing the Church a breach of order.

Canon X.

If anyone pray in company with one who has been excommunicated, he shall be excommunicated himself.

Canon XI.

If anyone who is a clergyman pray in company with a deposed clergyman, he shall be deposed too.

Canon LIV.

If any clergyman be caught eating in a tavern or any restaurant where intoxicating beverages are served, let him be excommunicated, except only in case it happens to be at a wayside in where he has put up for the night by necessity.

Canon LXIX.

If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or subdeacon, or Anagnost, or Psalt fails to fast throughout the forty days of Holy Lent, or on Wednesday, or on Friday, let him be deposed from office. Unless he be prevented from doing so by reason of bodily illness. If, on the other hand, a layman fails to do so, let him be excommunicated.

Then we see here:

THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

Canon I.

WE have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.

________________________

My question: Are the councils infallible when they contain canons we no longer follow, plus anathemas, plus a statement in another council that canons we no longer follow "should remain in force?"

I'm genuinely interested in finding an answer to this question.

Thanks,

Rayanne

yes. because if the conditions of those councils return, they are in full force. many are not followed because the times have changed, but should society change back, those canons have their strength.

anathemas are not the same as excommunications. yes, when against erroneous theology they are infallible.

 

[Rayanne]

Does this mean that the Holy Spirit has cursed everyone that doesn't accept the decrees of the councils?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Does this mean that the Holy Spirit has cursed everyone that doesn't accept the decrees of the councils?

not necessarily, unless they do it willingly. no one is condemned for unintentional ignorance or whatever.