- Jul 2, 2018
- 18,580
- 11,393
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes. I was surprised to see them own the scam, and even justify it. Hello? - lol
Upvote
0
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.
Yes. I was surprised to see them own the scam, and even justify it. Hello? - lolTo many believers it does unfortunately seem to be so.
How can you write that and then turn around and claim he puts his children in an eternal BBQ with no hope of escape? Even those countless billions who have never so much as heard the name of Jesus. How is that "infinitely loving"?The grace of God is what draws people into the Christian religion, and my experience is that people who are not baptized into our faith respond most favorably to discussions of the loving nature of God. And God is infinitely loving, as it says in the Gospel.
Apokatastasis was quite properly rejected as a theological error, indeed, as a heresy, at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (although I do believe that Emperor Justinian acted arbitrarily in anathematizing Origen for his belief in apokatastasis, when St. Gregory Nyssa also believed in it, and Origen was as widely respected for his piety in the third century, if not more so, than St. Gregory Nyssa in the fourth (whose importance unlike that of Origen, who was individually and uniquely vital in the Church of Alexandria, was that of one of several pro-Nicene Christians known as the Cappadocians, including his older brother St. Basil the Great, and his older brother’s best friend, St. Gregory Nazianzus, neither of whom expressed a belief in apokatastasis).
The last denomination where a belief in apokatasis was common was the Church of the East, where we see it reflected in the writings of the Assyrian monk St. Isaac the Syrian and lastly in The Book of the Bee by the Assyrian Metropolitan bishop, His Eminence Mar Solomon Bassorah, dating from 1222 AD. Since that time, the Church of the East has rejected Apokatastasis.
It should also be stressed that Apokatasis as believed in in antiquity, and Universalism as believed today, by, for example, members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, are not the same thing. Indeed, the idea of Apokatastasis as viewed in antiquity is, I think, best summarized by this quote from The Book of the Bee:
That said, I do reject this as an error, in line with the overwhelming consensus of the early Church; I believe that CS Lewis instead properly expressed the truth of the matter when he said “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside.” That is to say, scripture indicates there are people who are so filled with hate that loving God would be impossible for them, and so, tragically, they are binded by their boundless capacity for self-destructive hated.
God is not responsible for hell? How could you claim such a thing?...if we dwell on the horrors of damnation, catechumens and interested persons might recoil thinking that God desires this and is in some way responsible for it...
Yes. There's the answer to my question. Blame the victims. "...sinners alone... are responsible" - The Liturgist...sinners alone who refuse the salvific grace offered by our Lord are responsible...
What if you are wrong about that as well? You have heard of Origen?...alternative, deterministic forms of soteriology, which my research indicates were unknown in the early church...
Rejected by Damnationists. That's some shocking news.Apokatastasis was quite properly rejected as a theological error...
What if you are wrong about that as well? You have heard of Origen?
How can you write this when you claimed in a previous post that it was "unknown in the early church"? How could Apokatastasis be "rejected as a theological error" if it was unknown?Apokatastasis was quite properly rejected as a theological error, indeed, as a heresy, at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (although I do believe that Emperor Justinian acted arbitrarily in anathematizing Origen for his belief in apokatastasis, when St. Gregory Nyssa also believed in it, and Origen was as widely respected for his piety in the third century, if not more so, than St. Gregory Nyssa in the fourth (whose importance unlike that of Origen, who was individually and uniquely vital in the Church of Alexandria, was that of one of several pro-Nicene Christians known as the Cappadocians, including his older brother St. Basil the Great, and his older brother’s best friend, St. Gregory Nazianzus, neither of whom expressed a belief in apokatastasis).
Yes. There's the answer to my question. Blame the victims. "...sinners alone... are responsible" - The Liturgist
What would you say is the "correct response" then? (sweep it under the carpet?)This is a valid criticism of some aspects of Reformed theology which reject Free Will, but I would say that embracing Universalism is not the correct response to this error.
How can you write this when you claimed in a previous post that it was "unknown in the early church"? How could Apokatastasis be "rejected as a theological error" if it was unknown?
The Liturgist said: ↑
...alternative, deterministic forms of soteriology, which my research indicates were unknown in the early church...
Origen did not adhere to Calvinism or any intentional model of soteriological determinism (for reasons I explained by quoting The Book of the Bee, Apokatastasis is not Universalism per se, although still an error; it is not monergistic to the same extent as Universalism in that it incorporates, addresses, and responds to free will).
All three views of the final judgment have biblical support.Origen did not adhere to Calvinism or any intentional model of soteriological determinism (for reasons I explained by quoting The Book of the Bee, Apokatastasis is not Universalism per se, although still an error; it is not monergistic to the same extent as Universalism in that it incorporates, addresses, and responds to free will).
Reminds me of a song. "Let's do the twist"They are not victims. If they were forced to love God against their will, then they would be victims.
What would you say is the "correct response" then? (sweep it under the carpet?)
Saint Steven said: ↑
Are you claiming that God predestined people for an eternity in hell? That they will be tormented forever with no hope of escape? That is a terrible thing to accuse God of. Sounds more like an angry volcano god to me.
How is the threat of hell "voluntary and devoid of coercion"?I would say the correct response is to acknowledge free will and the self-evident truth that a genuine love for God needs must be voluntary and devoid of coercion...
All three views of the final judgment have biblical support.
But it seems that you claim that only YOUR doctrinal opinion is NOT in error.
I believe that CS Lewis instead properly expressed the truth of the matter when he said “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside.”
How is the threat of hell "voluntary and devoid of coercion"?
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?