Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Problem with this kind of response as I see it is it fails to address the BIBLE teachings on hell. The Nicene Creed is not on par with the Holy Bible, rather it interprets certain Truths of the Bible...why rely on what it says or doesn't say about a doctrine which as you say is untouched?I think that the weakest case for those who claim true Christianity insists on eternal punishment is that the Nicene Creed fails to address the subject, one way or the other.
Problem with this kind of response as I see it is it fails to address the BIBLE teachings on hell. The Nicene Creed is not on par with the Holy Bible, rather it interprets certain Truths of the Bible...why rely on what it says or doesn't say about a doctrine which as you say is untouched?
The Nicene Creed was intended to deal with a specific problem. However I agree that they embedded the solution in a general summary of the faith. There were enough universalists who were considered orthodox that you wouldn't expect it to condemn universalism. But I'm not sure how significant the omission is, since clearly the creed didn't intend to take a position on every theological controversy.The Nicene Creed tells us a lot about what many early Chrisitans believed. I think it`s a good point.
The Nicene Creed was intended to deal with a specific problem. However I agree that they embedded the solution in a general summary of the faith. There were enough universalists who were considered orthodox that you wouldn't expect it to condemn universalism. But I'm not sure how significant the omission is, since clearly the creed didn't intend to take a position on every theological controversy.
God was speaking of the generations of ALL mankind under the OT LAW and this statement was issued after the LAW was pronounced...warnings of the gravity of sin in other words. Romans 6:23 summarizes this way: 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.How do you feel about the Christian apologists and writers who interpret that third and forth generations comment to be in reference to the 3 generations of men Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 3 generations who could take on and sometimes learn to emulate their fathers sinful behaviours.
For example, Isaac uses the same kind of deception regarding his wife that his father used (e.g. “tell people you’re my sister so that it might go well with me.”) Jacob had his obvious issues too.
Point being they wouldn’t interpret that section of scripture as being a curse upon 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations (e.g. “punishing the children” for their fathers sin.)
Punishing the children of generation 3 because generation 1 hated Him seems strange in the extreme, but it’s believable that an alcoholic father produces alcoholic sons, so the generations proceeding him are punished.
There’s God’s punishment in there, but it’s more like a knock on effect, sin culture in the home that infects and brings ruin to the children in a similar way as the previous generation.
There’s lots of scripture that says God doesn’t punish any son for his fathers crimes (or vice versa.) There’s an entire chapter where God condemns that sort of thinking (Ezekiel 18,) in that section God denounces the phrase “The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”
If my thoughts add fuel to the fire it’s okay to ignore them, it can just be seen as further context.
I recite the Nicene Creed often in Church...I AM familiar...it is not the Bible however, nor is it on par with the Holy Bible which does speak of hell and damnation which we are discussing here.The Nicene Creed tells us a lot about what many early Chrisitans believed. I think it`s a good point.
I recite the Nicene Creed often in Church...I AM familiar...it is not the Bible however, nor is it on par with the Holy Bible which does speak of hell and damnation which we are discussing here.
Ezekiel 18:23:Having been taught the traditional understanding of hell for a long time, then finding for myself that there are a lot of holes in that narrative, I’m happy with the label “hopeful universalist,“ God appears to be a “hopeful universalist” Himself (e.g. “Do I take pleasure in the death of the wicked?” “Not willing that any should perish.”)
Where does average person's belief fit in exactly with God and His Word? That is what needs to be addressed in my view.The next oldest creed, the first declaration authorized by a consensus of the whole church, was the Nicene, A.D. 325; completed in 381 at Constantinople. Its sole reference to the future world is in these words: "I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world (æon) to come." It does not contain a syllable referring to endless punishment, though the doctrine was then professed by a portion of the church, and was insisted upon by some, though it was not generally enough held to be stated as the average belief.
So dominant was the influence of the Greek fathers, who had learned Christianity in their native tongue, in the language in which it was announced, and so little had Tertullian's cruel ideas prevailed, that it was not even attempted to make the horrid sentiment a part of the creed of the church.
Moreover, Gregory Nazianzen presided over the council in Constantinople, in which the Nicean creed was finally shaped--the Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed--and as he was a Universalist, and as the clause, "I believe in the life of the world to come," was added by Gregory of Nyssa, an "unflinching advocate of extreme Universalism, and the very flower of orthodoxy," it must be apparent that the consensus of Christian sentiment was not yet anti-Universalistic.Bolding my own, this section was especially relevant to the current topic of conversation. It’s useful for the “everlasting” or “eternal punishment” problem passages too, maybe providing some useful insight into how the church understood certain phrases.
To me the early creeds highlight what exactly Christians considered worth quarrelling over (especially since universalism was already about at this point in time and easily addressed if troublesome,) amidst Christians dividing over either one’s understanding of hell or universalism didn’t seem to make the list of worthy causes for a very long time.
^^^^ quote from “Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine” by J. W. Hanson.
We all want to be merciful and should be toward all...mercy triumphs over judgement Scripture states. But we do a disservice to the unbeliever if we do not warn. If the salt looses its saltiness it is good for nothing...
Where does average person's belief fit in exactly with God and His Word? That is what needs to be addressed in my view.
Can you repeat the fantasy delusions?
I am open about universalism, I just don't know how you guys get past some verses. If you have an explanation for them I will hear you out. For example, all of the verses that say the wicked will perish, everlasting destruction, the second death, etc.? How do you explain those verses about perishing and the wicked getting destroyed?
The Nicene Creed was intended to deal with a specific problem. However I agree that they embedded the solution in a general summary of the faith. There were enough universalists who were considered orthodox that you wouldn't expect it to condemn universalism. But I'm not sure how significant the omission is, since clearly the creed didn't intend to take a position on every theological controversy.
The lack of mention in the Nicene Creed isn't much of an issue, since as you note it was dealing with specific issues.
I do think that a general lack of statement in the creedal language of the Church demonstrates that this isn't an issue that had yet necessitated a formal definition.
I think the closest we really get to something like that is with one of the Justinian anathemas against Origen that are often associated with the 5th ecumenical council.
"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 (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema." - Emperor Justinian's Anathemas against Origen, 9
However it's also been my understanding that there has been a lot of doubt about the canonical status of the anti-Origenist anathemas.
And there is a lot that probably needs to be unpacked generally when discussing the complex relationship between Origen and some later churchmen. Given that there is very generally the sentiment today that Origen was himself unfairly condemned posthumously; and what is to be condemned isn't Origen, but rather later what we might call hyper-Origenists.
-CryptoLutheran
Yes, Rick!
I believe that in the end people who are wicked will be outside of the gates of the heavenly Jerusalem. Believers will be in heavenly Jerusalem with God, and the Lord God Almighty.
Sometimes punishment can pertain to our choices in our life. There are many choices and paths and roads to take in the life and there are so many people, some who been restored by God and some still unsure and still searching for truth in life, some who dont care living in their own wants and desires.
We can cause death to our spirit as believers by grieving it, when we end up doing something that starts to lay on us that we should try to reconcile.
There is a song that says there is no rest for the wicked and money doesn’t grow on trees though in time we all pass away and our deeds we have done are final with our last breathe.
Then we return to God in whatever spiritual body he gives to all as all are resurrected though as I explained earlier those who did not want nothing to do with God are on the outside of the heavenly Jerusalem.
I don’t believe in universalism because their is only one way that is through Christ Jesus, and of course he can even reach those who don’t know that exact name.
I was gonna add more to this but i think this is my clear defintion of the afterlife, and the gates of the heavenly city never close, which allows for the ability for God to get his will, for all to come to the knowledge of the truth even after DEATH itself.
Look at the book of Jonah, for more details about second chances anyway that is all and thank you @RickReads
Jonah hated the fact God saved them, even after all of their wicked ways... He hated, that fact.
I just believe that God is the savior of all people and his will/desire is to have all come to the knowledge of the truth. '
1 Timothy 4:10 This is why we work hard and continue to struggle, for our hope is in the living God, who is the Savior of all people and particularly of all believers.
Looking at scriptures from my eyes even though it feeds my spirit by increasing faith in the Good things of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, I believe all the new testament is done and completed.
No more waiting on the Lord Jesus Christ to come an rescue you when you already have his spirit inside of you by your faith and belief!
God bless friends.
Thanks for any prayers sent up for my family, and my sufferings over here! MAy you all be blessed in the things you are going through and overcome through the strength we get from our Lord.
You think about things a little differently then most, I probably do as well but I think I can agree with all that except for one thing.
I don`t think Universalism is trying to promote an alternative to Jesus. I must say that I don`t understand Universalism very well but the main premise seems to be that the King James crowd translated some words incorrectly and that our view of hell is based on thinking from the dark ages.
If that is true we could be getting things very wrong. Does God intend to torture ignorant creatures who only lived a short time for all eternity? I`m unsure about that.
I don't know if I am universalism, since all I believe through my life observation , observing from social media observation, news report and over decades of daily life. But my observation has its limitation, limited to stuff I read, observe, see and accumulated experience until now. and I do have personal bias, ignorance, and preference , in favor of certain positions.. I do not believe faithfully in whatever written in bible as"true bible believer" if those verses strongly violated my common sense. But I am not a " rejection of God", but I do believe the ideas there is a being somewhere out there, a omni-potent being, God.
If all wicked will perished, if it's not making any senses to you. Changing it to "majority of wicked get perished ", then it make much more sense to you,..Then just modified and fixed it, it's not a big deal. There are some verses, even saying people live "hundred of years old" You don't really need to buy in everything which lead to contradiction and confusion to common senses. As long as one believe there is a God and God love you. That's enough. That's the most fundamental and root of it. It's alright to has some little fix of here and there.
In some unknown countries, problematic law or statute just constantly abolished ,omitted , modified , fixed ,updated by some responsible scholars and law makers to keep functionality of statues and serve different era of people better. Most importantly, after being fixed, it is more reasonable to majority of people and it MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE.
Universalism certainly is not trying to replace Jesus. But it envisions a different role for him. The typical evangelical view is that everyone is naturally damned. Jesus provides an opportunity for a few (estimates of 10% still seem to be common) to be saved.I don`t think Universalism is trying to promote an alternative to Jesus. I must say that I don`t understand Universalism very well but the main premise seems to be that the King James crowd translated some words incorrectly and that our view of hell is based on thinking from the dark ages.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?