What is the Catholic, Orthodox or your own Protestant denominational view on universalism?

[zippy2006]

This is mainly an ad hominem approach. Attacking the proponents rather than addressing the doctrine itself. Are you lacking a good theological argument?

I have addressed the argument at length here and elsewhere. Anyone who has engaged at the length I have engaged realizes the truth of what I have said.

 

[Hmm]

Anyone who has engaged at the length I have engaged...

I've no idea what this is supposed to mean

...realizes the truth of what I have said.

No, not everyone

 

[Hmm]

They will claim that it is a "divided opinion"* when 999 people are on one side and 1 person is on the other side.

I questioned whether the 999 figure as being plucked out of thin air or whether it was supported. You have now simply adopted it in your arguments. Not everything you read on the Internet is true.

The main reason there's a divided opinion and I have tried to explain this again and again is not because of anyone's opinion on universalism, whether that's DBH or any member here, but because there is divided opinion on whether the EO Church officially denounces it or not. Everyone incl. DBH, Jersak etc agrees that the EO Church does not endorse universalism. What you don't accept is that neither does it condemn it as a heresy. On the one hand, there is the view that stems from the practice of the early EO Church that any statement of this significance would have to be approved by an Ecumenical council and OTOH we have the more modern view that local councils and hymnology etc are sufficient. (The hymnology that I've quoted on this thread has referred to universal restoration anyway).

I've asked whether there's a definitive statement on this from the Church proper but all that's been quoted has been articles from priests or statements from local councils. So I have to conclude that the Church neither condemns universalism as heresy but neither does it promote it, rather it does not take an official stance one way or the other and so allows individual freedom of conscience on the matter. The nearest category I have for this in the list in the OP is Neutral so that's what I've put it down as.

As to ad homs, when Jersak was attacked as not being a "real" Orthodox Christian and I mentioned that, as well as being a writer, he's also a monastery preacher in the North America Orthodox Monastery, even the monastery itself because subject to discreditation! What has the monastery ever done to anyone here?

 

[Ceallaigh]

I have addressed the argument at length here and elsewhere. Anyone who has engaged at the length I have engaged realizes the truth of what I have said.

So when all else fails resort to ad homs.

 

[All4Christ]

I questioned whether the 999 figure as being plucked out of thin air or whether it was supported. You have now simply adopted it in your arguments. Not everything you read on the Internet is true.

The main reason there's a divided opinion and I have tried to explain this again and again is not because of anyone's opinion on universalism, whether that's DBH or any member here, but because there is divided opinion on whether the EO Church officially denounces it or not. Everyone incl. DBH, Jersak etc agrees that the EO Church does not endorse universalism. What you don't accept is that neither does it condemn it as a heresy. On the one hand, there is the view that stems from the practice of the early EO Church that any statement of this significance would have to be approved by an Ecumenical council and OTOH we have the more modern view that local councils and hymnology etc are sufficient. (The hymnology that I've quoted on this thread has referred to universal restoration anyway).

I've asked whether there's a definitive statement on this from the Church proper but all that's been quoted has been articles from priests or statements from local councils. So I have to conclude that the Church neither condemns universalism as heresy but neither does it promote it, rather it does not take an official stance one way or the other and so allows individual freedom of conscience on the matter. The nearest category I have for this in the list in the OP is Neutral so that's what I've put it down as.

As to ad homs, when Jersak was attacked as not being a "real" Orthodox Christian and I mentioned that, as well as being a writer, he's also a monastery preacher in the North America Orthodox Monastery, even the monastery itself because subject to discreditation! What has the monastery ever done to anyone here?

I’ll rephrase the comment I provided in a response in the main thread later when I’m not running out the door to church. I misword things when I am rushing.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

I'm a futurist/literalist, my church is the one of the seven in the 7 letters that best describes my current relationship with God from Ge:1:1-2.

How do you define who is who in Northern Europe when the Christian Reformation Wars started in the 1300s?
Without getting into specifics, would this concept be able to show things today are based on the wars that began that long ago?
Option:A The Vatican Swiss Guards are personal bodyguards to the Pope alone. Rather than send old retired professionals, raw recruits are sent instead. 20 years old, single, 10 year mission. Pope pays them out of the $325M the Vatican spends per year.

Option:B The Vatican Swiss Guards are prison guards that make it clean (by their clown costumes) they are hired soldiers like they were 500 years ago. The Norman Bankers would be who they are loyal to as that is who has the funds to hire them (and Pirates of course) to make sure the Vatican doesn't 'spill the beans' about them being controlled or not. Their wives and children are free to wander all over the place, as that is their home as well. Prison guards would do that, a man who is expecting a terrorist attack would not bring them 'to work', at least I wouldn't.

Wives of Swiss Guards: Work schedules, kids and school buses create adventure in the Vatican​

Does that not create two different options for who the RCC is today? If they are controlled, the headlines were written wherever the money comes from that pays the guards.
The University Luther (not Lex, the other one from the 30 years war) was trained at was anti-RCC. Lawyer turned Priest might have been an act when you compare to how hidden wars are started today. When the armies that were under him, they were all hired soldiers, so that needed a ton of money, even that far back.

If Denmark and Sweden were hired armies fighting the RCC they were funded by the Norman bankers. Did they win or lose based on what the 21st century looks like.

Thirty Years' War - Danish Intervention 1626-1629 DOCUMENTARY
In the previous episode of our animated historical documentary series on the Thirty Years' War we have covered Bohemian Rebellion and the battle of the White Mountain between the Catholic and Protestant forces. This new episode will see Denmark under its king Christian IV joining the war on the Protestant side and fighting a 4-year campaign against the Catholic League and Holy Roman empire armies led by Johann Tilly and Albrecht von Wallenstein. The battles of Lutter and Stralsund represented the peak of this part of the Thirty Years' War.

Gustavus Adolphus - Breitenfeld 1631 - 30 YEARS' WAR DOCUMENTARY
Another episode in our animated historical documentary series on the Thirty Years' War and Gustavus Adolphus enters the field to fight for the Protestant cause. The Swedish King would fight against the Catholic commander Tilly at the battle of Breitenfeld

Europe is still at war?? Really?

 

[zippy2006]

I questioned whether the 999 figure as being plucked out of thin air or whether it was supported. You have now simply adopted it in your arguments. Not everything you read on the Internet is true.

Nope, and this is more untruthfulness on your part, just as we have seen throughout. Here is the exchange as it originally occurred, before your edits:

So if you have 999 people in a group with one view, and one person in the group with another view, you consider this divided opinion?

Of course it represents a divided opinion.

Note that word, "if." This really gets to the heart of my point. There is no possible argument that would sway the Universalist. Prodromos asked a hypothetical, and you responded to that hypothetical.

 

[zippy2006]

So when all else fails resort to ad homs.

You are the one engaging in ad hominem. I have given plenty of arguments, and you have even admitted that you were not able to understand the fourth one (despite the fact that it is a formal argument making use of the most elementary syllogistic inferences). Here are a few:

• Argument against Universalism.
• Argument about Universalists.
• Argument from Councils.
• Argument against Emotional Appeal to Infants.

 

[Ceallaigh]

But the less than in 999 figure is yours. Can you support it or have you just plucked out of the air and it's completely meaningless?

I questioned whether the 999 figure as being plucked out of thin air or whether it was supported. You have now simply adopted it in your arguments. Not everything you read on the Internet is true.

Nope, and this is more untruthfulness on your part, just as we have seen throughout. Here is the exchange as it originally occurred, before your edits:

I'm not seeing any untruthfulness on Hmm's part. Nor does it say that post was edited.

 

[zippy2006]

Nor does it say that post was edited.

You can edit a post for a few minutes after posting and the post will not be publicly flagged as "edited." Feel free to try it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

You are the one engaging in ad hominem. I have given plenty of arguments, and you have even admitted that you were not able to understand the fourth one (despite the fact that it is a formal argument making use of the most elementary syllogistic inferences). Here are a few:

• Argument against Universalism.
• Argument about Universalists.
• Argument from Councils.
• Argument against Emotional Appeal to Infants.

That doesn't change the fact that in the post I replied to, you were trashing individuals.

 

[Ceallaigh]

You can edit a post for a few minutes after posting and the post will not be publicly flagged as "edited." Feel free to try it.

What did he say originally?

 

[zippy2006]

That doesn't change the fact that in the post I replied to, you were trashing individuals.

No, that's not true. An ad hominem fallacy is an argument such as, "Joe is intransigent, therefore Joe's conclusion is false."

What I am doing is pointing out and arguing for the intransigence of Universalists (as if we needed more evidence!). This is because each time I get to the end of the 10-page discussion with a CF Universalist, we end up at something like, "So it looks like Universalism is true if and only if 2+2=5." Their response is effectively, "That's fine with me. If 2+2 must equal 5 for Universalism to be true, then I am comfortable saying that 2+2=5." And then I think to myself, "Why, oh why have I wasted so much time talking to this person!?"

I want others to understand what they are in for, and to have the option to skip the 10-page 'conversation'. Reprimanding individuals who engage in such outlandish forms of intransigence is not "trashing individuals." It is a highly necessary endeavor that every society which has existed has engaged in, and for good reason. Stigma attaches to untruthfulness for good reason.

 

[Ceallaigh]

No, that's not true. An ad hominem fallacy is an argument such as, "Joe is intransigent, therefore Joe's conclusion is false."

What I am doing is pointing out and arguing for the intransigence of Universalists (as if we needed more evidence!). This is because each time I get to the end of the 10-page discussion with a CF Universalist, we end up at something like, "So it looks like Universalism is true if and only if 2+2=5." Their response is effectively, "That's fine with me. If 2+2 must equal 5 for Universalism to be true, then I am comfortable saying that 2+2=5." And then I think to myself, "Why, oh why have I wasted so much time talking to this person!?"

I want others to understand what they are in for, and to have the option to skip the 10-page 'conversation'. Reprimanding individuals who engage in such outlandish forms of intransigence is not "trashing individuals." It is a highly necessary endeavor that every society which has existed has engaged in, and for good reason. Stigma attaches to untruthfulness for good reason.

So you resorted to put downs because your arguments have been ineffective.

 

[Hmm]

So you resorted to put downs because your arguments have been ineffective.

Thanks @MMXX but it's really not worth the candle arguing with this guy. I actually find it confirming that he disagrees with me so incoherently. I would be very worried if he agreed with me.

 

[All4Christ]

OTOH we have the more modern view that local councils and hymnology etc are sufficient

I don’t think anyone here said that local councils and hymnody is sufficient. Rather, we appeal to Holy Tradition (including consensus of the Church Fathers, all the service texts, Scripture, etc.) and hold that to be authoritative.

The question becomes - what does the Orthodox Church teach - not what we believe as individuals.

As to ad homs, when Jersak was attacked as not being a "real" Orthodox Christian and I mentioned that, as well as being a writer, he's also a monastery preacher in the North America Orthodox Monastery, even the monastery itself because subject to discreditation! What has the monastery ever done to anyone here?

Where was Jersak attacked as not being a “real” Orthodox Christian? No one stated that. I did say he taught promoted some controversial teachings and that I do not consider him to be someone to listen to in order to determine Orthodox theology.

Likewise, no one discredited the monastery. If you are referencing my comments earlier, I was trying to explain that being a monastery preacher doesn’t mean that the person is to be trusted automatically for “orthodox” teaching.

Archbishop Lazar Puhalo teaches some things that contradict the teachings of the OCA and Orthodox Church. As Archbishop Lazar is the spiritual father of Brad Jersak, it is logical that Brad Jersak also holds and teaches some controversial beliefs. Likewise, as the monastery is led by Archbishop Lazar, it also is logical that some controversial teachings may be shared there.

I suggest looking at the OCA website Statement of Faith (These Truths We Hold) to find what the jurisdiction of that monastery (and that of Archbishop Lazar) teaches about universalism.

** For what it’s worth, Brad Jersak doesn’t hold to absolute universalism. He calls it “confident conviction” as opposed to “hopeful universalism”.

 

[prodromos]

Thanks @MMXX but it's really not worth the candle arguing with this guy. I actually find it confirming that he disagrees with me so incoherently. I would be very worried if he agreed with me.

Your inability to understand is not a measure of coherence.

 

[Ceallaigh]

So what I've been seeing in Catholicism and Orthodoxy is at the least a desire for inclusionism up to even a hope of universal redemption. The Catholic way is not to be too presumptuous regarding God's holy judgement even when it comes to one's own salvation. It's a matter of hope and trust.

 

[Hmm]

I don’t think anyone here said that local councils and hymnody is sufficient. Rather, we appeal to Holy Tradition (including consensus of the Church Fathers, all the service texts, Scripture, etc.) and hold that to be authoritative.

I also didn't say that local councils and hymnody is sufficient because I used the word "etc" just as you do. I explained that in my comment to you earlier and yet you are repeating the same thing.

It would have been better if I'd used the phrase Holy Tradition but remember I'm not Orthodox and the term is not so familiar to me that it instantly comes to mind.

The question becomes - what does the Orthodox Church teach - not what we believe as individuals.

That's always been the question. I've said from the very beginning that this thread is about the views of the churches, not of individuals.

Where was Jersak attacked as not being a “real” Orthodox Christian? No one stated that. I did say he taught promoted some controversial teachings and that I do not consider him to be someone to listen to in order to determine Orthodox theology.

Likewise, no one discredited the monastery. If you are referencing my comments earlier, I was trying to explain that being a monastery preacher doesn’t mean that the person is to be trusted automatically for “orthodox” teaching.

Archbishop Lazar Puhalo teaches some things that contradict the teachings of the OCA and Orthodox Church. As Archbishop Lazar is the spiritual father of Brad Jersak, it is logical that Brad Jersak also holds and teaches some controversial beliefs. Likewise, as the monastery is led by Archbishop Lazar, it also is logical that some controversial teachings may be shared there.

Sorry but Jersak was clearly attacked as not being an authentic Orthodox Christian. I put the word "real" in quotes in the way you do when speaking, not because the word was actually used.

I know nothing about Puhalo or whether he contradicts the Orthodox church although I'm somewhat surprised that, if he does, he's still allowed to lead a monastery. This suggests to me that when you say "contradicts" and "controversial" you are meaning something that you and the majority of the church don't agree with. If that's universalism then "contradicts" is too strong as word because the church does not condemn universalism as a heresy. If you disagree, then you will need to explain why the church allows a known heretic to run one of its monasteries.

I agree that universalism is "controversial" in that it's a minority opinion. But, to me, ECT, in portraying God as a Torturer, is far more controversial than believing that God saves all His children so that one day He will be "all in all" as He promised he would be.

I suggest looking at the OCA website Statement of Faith (These Truths We Hold) to find what the jurisdiction of that monastery (and that of Archbishop Lazar) teaches about universalism.

I'll have a look. Let me likewise suggest you read anything by Jersak or Thomas Talbott, or one of the many YouTube videos of Jersak. I don't recommend DBH because of his complicated writing style, not his ideas.

** For what it’s worth, Brad Jersak doesn’t hold to absolute universalism. He calls it “confident conviction” as opposed to “hopeful universalism”.

He most certainly does uphold absolute universalism. He explains by what he means by "confident conviction" in this extract from an article on his website. It's not just a different name than "hopeful universalism" as you believe.

"I have always clarified that when I say “hopeful,” my hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. That is, I use “hope” the same way Paul does when he refers to Christ as our “blessed hope.” He is completely convinced of something that is yet to come. For Paul, “the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13) is not wishful or doubtful. He holds a conviction that is anchored specifically in the faithfulness of Jesus. In the same way, I am personally convinced of ultimate redemption or the restoration/summing up of all things in Christ. I believe the New Testament anticipates this telos dozens of times. And in that sense, I’ve moved from Balthasar’s and Ware’s open-ended hopeful inclusivism (that leaves room for the possibility in principle, however unlikely, that some might forever reject the love of God) to a more confident conviction (as in St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Maximos the Confessor) that meeting Christ face-to-face will so heal the soul and remove the dysfunctions of the fallen will, that an entirely willing response to grace will inevitably result (a la Paul’s conversion or the Phil. 2 confession of faith).

On the other hand, I call this a confident conviction, rooted, I think, in Scripture and good theology BUT am not permitted (by my conscience or my spiritual father) to teach it as doctrine."

The full article is here Beyond "Hopeful Universalism" - Bradley Jersak - Brad Jersak

Coincidentally, he also gives a nice explanation here of the "neutral" stance of the Nicene Creed, which he calls, "our dogma", referring to the Orthodox church, on universalism:

"Simply put, the Nicene Creed (our dogma) says of eschatology:

• He will come again [doesn’t say how],
• to judge the living and that dead [doesn’t specify whether retributive or restorative],
• We look for the resurrection, and
• the life of the age to come.

There is no dogmatic statement about the destiny of unbelievers or the nature of hell.
There is no dogmatic statement that all shall be saved or that any shall be damned.
So while I hold a personal conviction that all shall be saved, and am even free to share my conviction and the reasons for it, I cannot impose it as doctrine, nor should the infernalists. To do so, in my mind, is technically a heresy (a mistake) because it violates the freedom of conviction of such mysteries as preserved in the Creed."

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


The thread has so many rule violations in it, the team decided it needs to be closed.

So now it is closed.


​