Amen to this. "Do not elevate secondary doctrines to dogmas" has been my mantra lately. It has saved me from backsliding more times than I can count. A good book on the subject is "Four Views on Hell" in Zondervan's Counterpoints series. It presents essays on the nature of hell as either literal, metaphorical, purgatorial (restoration), or conditional (annihilationism).
Hi Anne, I guess I don't understand the problem. Scripture tells us that we should always be prepared to give account of the hope we have in Our Lord, simply because my hope is a universal one, why should I keep silent? Anyone who preaches the Gospel is speaking of his hope. I think my hope is the greatest of all, why should I keep it from others who need to hear it? What's heretical in that?
I guess I'm not understanding your question. So we might be in trouble! Was universalism - that everyone will eventually be saved - deemed a heresy by the church or not?
How the CCC puts it (and I think rather beautifully): - 1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26). And... - 1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved.’
"praying for" something is different than what might actually be the reality. Christ Himself prayed to NOT die for us - a hope - and then accepted God's will anyway. May we be more like Him.
Some form of purgatory? Our parish priest once said that he does believe in some form of purgatory but not necessary the way it is being thought by the RCC..what are your thoughts?
Great question Anne. I'm no church historian just a lowly layman, so please take my findings with a grain of salt, but I believe the answer is no. Some have tried to say that all forms of universalism were condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (that's the 5th ecumenical council) where 15 anathema were declared against those who professed Origen's teachings. Origenism does not equal universalism, even though Origen preached a universalist (and essentially Platonic) form of salvation. That message brought with it a lot of baggage that no biblical universalist need or should agree with. According to what I read online the original Greek transcripts of the Council are lost but there are Latin summaries that have survived and there are English translations that can be drawn upon. CCEL makes them available. The 15 anathema against Origen can be found here: www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html In it, the Origenist ideas that are anathematized are: the preexistence of souls (from whish his belief in universal restoration flows); the idea that all creation was once spiritual, but that those spirits rejected God and became trapped in the materiality and carnality by that rejection; the idea that planets and other heavenly bodies have spiritual intelligence, the idea that humans are incarnated demons or angels that will go back to their angelic/demonic state after death; the idea that there are two types of demons one that is made up of the souls of humans and the other of "higher beings"; the idea that the spiritual Christ was reincarnated many times in many bodies at every plane to unite God with each level of spirits; the idea that Jesus is not truly God but rather a spiritual intelligence that is united to God; the idea that Christ is not truly God in the flesh; the idea that, after the resurrection, Christ became a sphere of ethereal light as will we all when we are resurrected; the idea that our resurrected bodies and all of creation will no longer be material but only spirit; the idea (and this is critical to our discussion) that the spirits of all men, heavenly powers, angels, demons, AND the Devil will unite hypostatically with and absorbed into the spiritual Christ; the idea that all, as Christ, would sit at God's right hand that all would cease to exist as separate persons but would be Christ only; and the idea that this final state would be exactly as the preternatural existence enjoyed by all prior to their rejection of God and spiritual fall. As you can see, universalism plays a very small part of what the Council viewed as heretical in Origenism. And the brand of universalism, which is essentially Platonic or Greco-pagan, taught by Origen differs markedly from biblical universalism, which does not truck with a single one of Origen's ideas. Biblical universalism teaches that all will eventually be saved, not by virtue of their pre-existence as godlike beings but by virtue Jesus Christ, who bore the full burden of their sins on the cross, ransomed and redeemed them, and will come again to bring them into his kingdom which will have no end. If universalism, rather than Origenism, was truly pronounced a heresy, then the Councils would have denounced the universalist leanings of other key ECFS like St Gregory of Nyssa, St. Jerome, St. Clement of Alexandria, Ireneaus of Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch, St. Ambrose, Dydemus, and on and on...I stead the churches hallowed the memories of these universalists by acknowledging them as the doctors of the faith and saints that they are. In the words of St. Clement, "We can place no limits to the agency of our Redeemer to redeem, to rescue, to discipline in his work, and so he will continue after this life."
I'm not sure either the Church or scripture has ever endorsed praying for something that was against God's revealed will.
I believe that all punishment will eventually end. Therefore, I believe all punishments are purgatoral or disciplinary, ie remedial, in nature. This is different from the Romish doctrine, which, as I understand it, teaches that there is both a Purgatory where you are punished temporally for all your venial sins that have not been sacramentally absolved, and a Hell where you are punished eternally for your mortal sins not sacramentally absolved. I agree with the Anglican reformers in their rejection of this and other Romish doctrines.
They need to hear and accept the Gospel message in this life to avoid the wrath and misery that awaits them in the life to come. To say that the punishment that awaits us is not eternal does not mean it is not dreadful and terrible. Those who reject Christ's forgiveness in this life will face His judgment in the next. If one does not avail himself of the opportunity of having his debts forgiven, then he will surely endure the hardship of having his debts settled. "Verily, I say to thee, Thou shalt in no wise come out thence till thou hast paid the last farthing." -St. Matthew 5:26
It seems to me that this thread doesn't go "round and round", but rather it's a punch-up by universalists against those who simply pile up "origenist" and "unbiblical" accusations on the universalists. The fact is that none of the first four General Councils - from which Anglicanism classically sought authoritative advice - dealt with Origen or his Universalism. If Anglicans would like to go beyond our Anglican Divines and accept the 5th General Council, that is their business. I don't think most Anglicans of a Protestant mind would accept a Council held in A.D. 553 as wholly indicative of the faith of the early Church. Since it is the Bible that is really in contention here, let's just be clear and say that one can take both Eternal Conscious Torment and Apocatastasis from the Scriptures. I'll give a few indications of where I think the Universalist "spirit" of at least the New Testament comes out very strongly. Luke 3:6 says all flesh shall see the salvation of God. Luke 6 is basically a Universalist creed. Christ teaches us to love our enemies, do good to those who curse us, etc., until He comes to the climax. He says God is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. He tells us to be merciful, even as our Father is merciful (6:36). This is a clear message: our forgiveness of every enemy, sinner, and foe is a sign of God's total forgiveness of every enemy, sinner, and foe. Luke 19:10 says the Son came to seek and save the lost. It doesn't say He came to save only some of the lost, nor that He came just to ask if we'd like to be saved. John 1:29 has The Baptist saying that the Lamb of God takes away the sin(s) of the world. He doesn't say the Lamb will try to do it, or that He'll ask us if we want our sins taken away. He just removes the sin -- and since sin is what separates us from God, what is left? John 3 says Christ was sent into the world not to condemn it, but that the whole world might be saved through Him (which is the biblical non-indifferentist Universalism). It adds that The Father has given all things into the Son's hand. John 6 says the will of the Father is that Christ should lose none of those that were given to Him. All things. John 17:1-3 contains the same message. John 12:32 says that when Christ is lifted up, He'll draw all people to Himself. Clear. Acts 3:21 says Christ remains in Heaven until all things are restored. The restoration of all things is the word Apocatastasis. Romans 5:18 is incredibly clear. Since one trespass/sin led to condemnation for ALL men, JUST SO, one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for ALL men. He's comparing Adam to Christ. Adam's Sin affected everyone regardless of whether we think we want it. In the same way, Paul says, Christ's righteousness leads to justification and life for all men, regardless of whether we think we want it. He makes an equivalency. Romans 11 says from Him, through Him, and unto Him are all things. Every thing that exists is a gift from God the Father to His Son. A gift is not given in half-measures. This same Chapter also says God consigned all to disobedience, so he might have mercy on all. 1 Corinthians 15:22-28's "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive" seems like it only applies to the Christians who are resurrected at first. Beyond that first part, however, it says death will be utterly destroyed by Christ. All death. Your death, my death, the Muslim's death, the Jew's death. It's because Christ is victorious, and no other reason. Those who don't acknowledge and see it will suffer in their sin until they do. Ephesians 1 & Colossians 1 both have the overwhelming message that Christ will unite all things to Himself. 1 Peter 3:19 & 4:6, combined, say that Christ preached to those who were dead, in prison, and preached the Gospel to them, that they might live in spirit, as God does. Not sure how this mixes with the theologian's idea that death is the end of free will in the human person. 1 John 3:8 says the Son of God appeared on earth to destroy the works of the devil. I'm pretty sure death, sin, and Hell are entirely Satan's work, having duped us. Kinda hard to go to a place that has been destroyed. Revelation 5:3 says all creatures at the end of time, in Heaven and on Earth and under the Earth and in the Sea (the symbol of evil in Scripture), were praising God and saying Amen. I don't think they'd be doing that under Duress in Hell, do you? To me, almost every book of the New Testament has a universalist outlook or spirit.
LL, this is FINALLY the most engaging discussion on this topic I have yet witnessed. Thank you (and thank you again!) for citing each of the 15 anathema! This sheds so much more light than simply quoting Scripture. As of today I have more clarification on this topic than I've had before. Interestingly, my position hasn't changed ... The point being that hope, desire, and praying for something is, I find, very different than learning that something is promised, or foretold, or any other kind of assurance. I could give many examples in Scripture that speak of damnation as eternal, but I think it's a waste of time to do that (because we all here know all that already). Believing that no one will choose to remain in hell is, I find, a hope/desire/something we should pray for. Not something that belongs in the latter category. Which is why I continue to believe it is hidden from us so that we may, in contemplating this mystery, not presume and yet not despair.
Brother, why do you insist on using the term "Romish"? Coming from N Ireland it reminds of the bad old days when "pastors",often self appointed, hurled vitriol and bitter calumny at the Roman Catholic Faith which I was then practising
I'm sorry the word offends you Aidan, "Romish" is the word the Articles of Religion use to describe certain errors doctrines of the Roman Church. Anglicans generally understand the allusion.
i think in what order the events happened could solve this conflict. jesus's crucifixion came last. so i would agree with aidan. ps the vatican is supposed to hold a ton of gospels that conflict with cannon.
Not for the first 400 years of its existence, no. Some arguments against it began to be made against certain forms of it, when the Latin speaking Constantinian church progressively failed to interpret Greek written scriptures accurately. Then from 600 Ad onward, when Greek was no longer the common language of the church, a fast decline into the dark ages and the worst period of superstition, political intrigue, violent power struggles, control, corruption and ignorance the church has ever suffered, until the Reformation. Since then a gradual regaining of understanding the Greek language the New Testament was originally written in, has 'rolled back' some of the ignorant superstition of 800 Ad to 1600 Ad and 'revealed' to us at last what the scriptures actually say without the accretions of medieval ignorance and Romeish religiosity.
The notion that there is a 'cut off' at death for any possibility of repentance is based I think on a very few scripture verses. Heb.9:27 is one of them. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" In its full context however it does not quite say what many would have us believe it does about the impossibility of repentance after death. almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. It would seem that the writer to the Hebrews is saying that Christ died the normal 'humanly' once in a lifetime, once. That much is clear. Then he has just immediately before stated that the in the 'once in his human lifetime' Christ not only put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, but this death represented 'the end of the world'. What might that mean? It might perhaps mean that the death of Christ signaled the end of hostility between God and mankind. The end of 'the separation' between God and mankind, resulting from 'sin'. Sin has been 'put away' by Christ's sacrifice. As to the notion that Judgment following after death therefore implies the loss of all opportunity to repent immediately upon death, this is not what the text actually says. It merely says that we face judgment, not that we face immediate condemnation and sentencing. A trial is to determine guilt and sentence is usually passed after mitigating circumstances and remorse of the accused are taken into consideration. There is no reason to suppose from the reading of this verse that there will be no opportunity for repentance before sentence is actually pronounced. Another factor that is rarely considered is that 'free will' in heaven cannot be the same in kind as 'free will' on earth. Free will on earth, (actually only the apparent ability to choose between limited options), is defined within the context of our being ignorant of God's presence and God's will. (to a great extent), whereas free will, (choice), in heaven is in the context of full knowledge of God's presence and will. Under those conditions 'free will' might just as well not exist. Nothing can oppose God's will in heaven. Satan and his angels were cast out for opposing God's presence and will, as would any other 'chooser' of anything in opposition to the will of God. Therefore if it is not the will of God that any should perish, it is not possible to 'choose' to be destroyed if God does not will it to be so. There is no freedom in heaven to oppose God's will. It is supreme, ALL freely acknowledge it. None wish to oppose it. When confronted with knowledge of the truth, no sane creature would choose its own destruction, rather than accept the truth, that God is sovereign and Christ is Lord of All. On these grounds I think it is quite possible that most, if not all of mankind will be 'saved', just as Jesus intended.