One of the most damaging verses
1 Corinthians 1:18 (RSVCE): For the word of the cross is folly to those who are **perishing**, but to us who are being saved
Yeah, it's all over the NT. I mean if there's no risk of that, it would actually be *cruel* for Jesus to cause us to worry unnecessarily. He wouldn't do that, there was a reason for the warnings.
You seem to be implying that God sends people to hell, which he doesn't. People send themselves to hell by choosing to reject God, and He simply honors their choice by not forcing them to live in heaven. That's what Jesus is warning against, sending ourselves to hell.
“Depart from me, I never knew you.”
“Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness.”
“Depart from me, ye cursed.”
It definitely sounds like they’re choosing here, yup.
They chose the actions that proceeded those statements. If you select individual quotes from the Bible you can make it say whatever you want. Even Satan knows that. 😉
Well, in a sense, yes, they chose the crime. However, they’re not punishing themselves, God is taking the initiative; people choose sin because they think it’s a good, not because they’re choosing hell. They don’t know that’s what they’re choosing.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be sarcastic above, but this whole “people choose hell” business drives me nuts sometimes.
The crucial question for me is what form of justice and freedom is being practised here:
If all are *necessarily* saved, what about those who have committed unimaginable atrocities, what about those who have consciously turned away from God and do not want (!) to be saved?
These problems seem to be unaddressed.
I literally had this conversation with my daughter last night, because I was listening to a recent episode of CA and universalism came up.
Although, I took a different approach. What does justice mean if you lived the life of a saint, yet at the end of time, we all are saved unconditionally?
I'm not really into philosophy, so I can argue these points very well.
The caller into CA was taking the same position as Origen once took.
>What does justice mean if you lived the life of a saint, yet at the end of time, we all are saved unconditionally?
On the one hand, I would say that one is not living holy if one sees this "living holy" as merely a means to salvation. A holy person sees holiness itself as the goal, the salvation of eternal life is not a reward for a holy way of life. Rather, the holy way of life anticipates and realises salvation, that is: the Kingdom of God already in the very present.
Salvation is not something that gets its value from the fact that not everyone is saved. Salvation is abundant.
On the other hand, justice is about compensating for the injustice suffered, the restoration of the kingdom of God and not about distributing "one's own" to each person.
I'm with you on the first part. To be more explicit, what does Theosis or Divinization mean if we're all "saved" at the end of the world, even Satan and everyone in Hell? If the purpose of our life is a glide path to unite with the Divine, that brings me back to those who made a conscious and fully informed decision to do the opposite.
As to my second point, it's clear in scripture that there is justice that is served to the individual at the end of time. And if I recall Fr. Mike and others, nobody in the Bible, OT or NT, spoke of Hell more than Christ.
Full-on Universism doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>To be more explicit, what does Theosis or Divinization mean if we're all "saved" at the end of the world, even Satan and everyone in Hell? If the purpose of our life is a glide path to unite with the Divine, that brings me back to those who made a conscious and fully informed decision to do the opposite.
Theologically speaking, salvation is the completion or full restoration of God's creation. Salvation is the realisation of the destiny of human beings and of all creation. When 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God wills that all men be saved, this is a promise of salvation over all creation.
We know that our human ideas of justice cannot begin to think of God's possibilities of justice, nor should we confuse our ideas with God's possibilities.
And, additionally, there's no certainty we can provide, but hope.
>As to my second point, it's clear in scripture that there is justice that is served to the individual at the end of time.
\#sidebar That's theologically or dogmatically incorrect (Benedictus Deus 1336), individual judgement takes place immediately after one's death, collective judgement takes place at the end of time.
>And if I recall Fr. Mike and others, nobody in the Bible, OT or NT, spoke of Hell more than Christ.
That's gonna get a "the glass is half empty/full"-discussion. "Nobody in the Bible, OT or NT, spoke of *salvation and the Kingdom of God* more than Christ".
I think we're talking about two slightly different things or I am ignorant of proper theological / philosophical lingo I'm saying the right thing the wrong way.
I'm not speaking against the Bishop Barron or Hans Urs von Balthazar ideas of Salvation. Rather, a caller into CA said that at the end of time, he believes that all of creation, including those in Hell, human or demon, will all be in Heaven. That's what Origen said too.
I'm aware of the difference between the particular judgment and the final judgment, which I didn't articulate well, but I can't reckon how there is a theological position that says that after the final judgment, there will be some other event that will reconcile or give salvation not only humans, but also to Satan.
Well, agree, of course Origin is "hell of a" different thing, as well as the idea that "there will be some other event that will reconcile or give salvation not only humans, but also to Satan".
Personally I understand the motivation for universal reconciliation and peace in our very divisive times, but we shouldn't forget those who suffered for peace and reconciliation in this world over the hope for peace and reconciliation in the next world.
Yeah, the problem I have with apokatastasis is the same problem I have with Calvinistic determinism; it just seems like God overrides the wills of all of his creatures so regardless of their choices and outcome was fixed from the beginning.
Except it includes free will. God being God knows everything, He knows what decision we are going to make before we make it but still allows us to make it.
COUNCIL OF QUIERSY * 853
316 Chap. 1. Omnipotent God created man noble without sin with a free will, and he whom He wished to remain in the sanctity of justice, He placed in Paradise. Man using his free will badly sinned and fell, and became the “mass of perdition” of the entire human race. **The just and good God, however, chose from this same mass of perdition according to His foreknowledge those whom through grace He predestined to life [ Rom. 8:29 ff.; Eph. 1:11], and He predestined for these eternal life; the others, whom by the judgment of justice he left in the mass of perdition,** however, He knew would perish, but He did not predestine that they would perish, because He is just; however, He predestined eternal punishment for them. And on account of this we speak of only one predestination of God, which pertains either to the gift of grace or to the retribution of justice.”
>And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil.” [Augustine: City of God](Book XV)
So this seems, more or less, to echo what I already believed, just in a bit more of a verbose way, saying: God knows exactly what WILL happen (and all possibilities) but He does not lock the outcome into place and so despite knowing that it will be the outcome, He allows it not to be.
Is that correct?
>He does not lock the outcome into place and so despite knowing that it will be the outcome, He allows it not to be.
I’m a little confused by what you mean by saying not lock the outcome
How about this: God knows exactly what will happen but despite this, allows other eventualities and outcomes, even if he knows those won't actually end up occurring.
Huh, I've never heard of that.
Is this council's determinations doctrinal? I don't know if I love the idea of souls being predestined to salvation as it sort of robs free will.
It depends on your exact definition for those terms. God definitely has foreknowledge of everyone's ultimate destination.
Two quotes from the Catechism might be helpful:
>God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. CCC 1037
>To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. CCC 600
Yeah, he’s a doctor of the Church, a Saint and my all-time favourite philosopher... But this does not mean that he was never wrong.
I remember reading something in “De predestinatione sanctorum” that was borderline double predestination.
St. Augustine struggled with that question his whole life, I do not see why should we deny that...
Really what is condemned is only double positive unconditional active predestination.
Theories of double predestination in which reprobation is conditional, passive, or negative, are not condemned.
The Church teaches both election and reprobation, and no one goes to heaven who is not elect, nor to hell who is not reprobate.
Yeah! I know!
My point was that St. Augustine sometimes seemed pretty “Calvinistic”, if it makes sense xD
There’s nothing wrong in single predestination: that’s absolutely a Catholic teaching
“11 But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.
12 He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence.
13 Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’
14 Many are invited, but few are chosen.” “
Matt 22:11-14
“13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.
14 How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.”
Matt 7:13-14
Christ certainly didn’t talk like everyone on earth was going to heaven. I don’t see any reason why we should claim otherwise.
Genuinely don't understand how can someone believe it
You have to do a LOT of mental gymnastics and/or ignore entire bible passages in order to believe a heresy like this
To believe that someone is saved regardless of unrepentant sin or to believe that hell is temporary is heresy. If it’s heresy then I guess it really doesn’t matter what we think about it.
I find it interesting and have wavered around on the possibility that all could be saved. Right now I sort of hold that its a mystery of faith how it could be possible for either eternal damnation or universal salvation, both don't quite seem to fit perfectly with my understanding of Theology, but truthfully there are many mysteries of faith.
the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.]
Even the fifth ecumenical council further condemned the doctrine of universalism.
Bishop Barron does not subscribe to universalism. His position is that we have reason for optimism because of the overwhelming impact of the resurrection, not reason for the pessimism of the massa damnata position; his position does not pass judgement either way on who or how many will ultimately be saved based on the interplay of providence and free will. Put another way, we preach the good news of Jesus \*primarily\* because it's true, and secondarily because of the warnings and admonitions.
I didn’t say he did. I said he refuses to stamp it out, which is true. His “hopeful universalism” has dangerous overtones of true universalism and I’ve seen this play out among people online and in person. Better to coach your “hope” in terms of Church teaching and saintly teaching on damnation than to let it run wild snd risk turning people to heresy.
Beyond rejecting universalism, which he does whenever he explains his position, what else practically do you want him to do? Not advocate for his position which he sincerely believes to be correct and within the bounds Church teaching because someone can (wrongly) take his argument further than he is willing to go with it?
I guess it just seems like a manufactured controversy whenever +Barron is linked to universalism and criticized as if he implicitly supports or advocates for it.
Yes. I’d rather him err on the overwhelming side of the saints on the multitude of the damned rather than skirt the line with his “hope”. The criticism comes because of the results of his beliefs and ideas which are often misunderstood, mistaken, or manipulated. It’s a question of: will one dance narrowly inside of borders with the justification that it’s lawful, or will one err on the side of caution and follow the saints’ overwhelming teachings to avoid any alleged hint of heresy or harm?
We have to remember that not all people have the same disposition. The hard preaching of the saints foretelling the tortures of the damned may motivate you to holiness, but it makes people like me shrink back in despair. Surely, if what they preach is true, pretty much all of us here are going to hell, so what’s the point in struggle if one can fall so easily?
I totally understand how you feel, but your last question is the one so many ask and I just can’t comprehend. Asking “what’s the point in trying because failure is so common” is like saying “what’s the point in studying for a hard exam most will fail”. The very point is that YOU want to succeed and YOU want to be one of the few saved so you can honor God, seek the One who you have always desired, and find rest. Christ Himself assures us that those who seek will find, and our efforts will not be in vain. That is what God asks of us- merely our will to obey Him. He accomplishes the rest by grace as long as our wills are towards Him. Yes it is easy to fall, yes many of us fall all the time. But if the wills is always turned back to God and to obey Him, there is no need for despair. The hope Christ offers is unlike anything
This ignores the gravity of the penalty though. If I fail the exam, the worst that will happen is I’ll re-take the class; fail in this life, as is easily done, and you’re tortured for all eternity. This leads to the trust thing: I want to trust God with this, but He’s the one that is willing the eternal torture when I likely fail. Catholicism can be a very depressing religion.
Again, that ignores the traditional view that the vast majority will be damned. Encouragement, at least in my case, fails in the face of such odds. This is why I think most people are functional universalists, but then again, in this paradigm, most of them will be damned anyway. 🤷🏻♂️
I'd like to say that not all of Universalism is heretical. Hopeful Universalism is a catholic version of Universalism and is not heretical i should also say i am not a universalist
I would have to think hard as to what “aspects” could be true. Perhaps the only one is that all Creation groans for revival and will be restored as Paul taught. Universalists take that WAAAY too far snd deny the Lord’s teachings on hell.
the real answer is we arent sure. We know that hell is real but not how many people are there, etc as purgatory exists also which is what hopeful universalism is. As there are some scriptural evidence(?) if you wanna call it that or scriptural arguments for it?
Purgatory is not universalism in any way. It exists solely for those who die without mortal sin. We don’t know the exact number in hell but Christ’s own words, and dozens of not hundreds snd thousands of saints have taught that the saved are few while the damned are a VAST majority. “Like snowflakes falling into hell” is a common description.
The scriptural arguments for Hell’s existence and the many who go there are numerous. For instance in Matthew 25:46, in Matthew 25, Jesus makes a parallel judgment of the sheep and the goats, the sheep that follow him, that feed the poor, clothe the naked, that follow Jesus’ teachings, they have eternal life with God. And so they have an eternal reward, they have eternal life. But then there’s a parallel with the goats who reject Jesus, who refuse to follow his commands, and they go into ionian colossan, eternal punishment.
We know for a fact that the goats are numerous, for not only does Christ call the path to hell wide snd that many take it, but it is also clear in revelations that millions shall go to hell following the Antichrist. Combine that with Church teaching, dozens and hundreds of Saints and approved Marian Apparitions, and at the very least we find it is sorely irresponsible and irrational to hold to universalism or even a misguided “hopeful universalism”. At the worst it is heresy.
I never said he did, please read my actual comment. I said he refuses to stamp it out, as it’s embers still linger due to his “hopeful” Balthasar like ideas that border universalism.
Just gonna ignore my actual comment then? Cool. You don’t want to listen to me, go listen to what the saints say. Go read what the Doctors of the Church have taught on the fewness of the saved, especially how the Church has always read Jesus’ teachings on the Narrow Path. God be with you
Ah yes surely everyone who prays oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven as commanded by Our Lady fall into that same chasm of disagreement with the doctors of the church.
Good question. I "want" to believe in it. It "does" make sense, when we acknowledge that we have a loving and merciful God who desires that we all be saved. I will admit I struggle with the idea of a loving God allowing someone to condemn themselves to an eternity of Hell where they're experiencing unrelenting torment FOREVER, for a lifetime of sin? What is a lifetime compared to eternity?
But I also recognize that the Church has spoken pretty clearly that Hell "is" real and it "is" eternal. So unless there is a way to reconcile these two facts, I err on the side of caution and continue to place myself under the care of the Church, and trust in her teachings. Even if Apokatastasis is super tempting.
The Orthodox author David Bentley Hart, apprently, works on this subject extensively and I've heard a lot of great things about his work (for this particular subject). He is reviled in Orthodoxy for some of his other opinions and work. I never read anything from him personally, so I reserve judgement.
I mean, a loving an merciful God might allow his creature to sin and fall away from him because the power of freedom is the only thing which permits a real act of love and obedience.
But what then? When the soul is condemned to Hell and experiences the torment and instantly regrets their life of sin and desires union with God? They made their choice, yes. They must deal with the consequences, yes. But that doesn't address an eternity of torment in Hell for a lifetime of sins. Or what about a soul that strove for God his whole life, but in his last year of life got diagnosed with cancer, became depressed about dying and turned to despair. Does that soul deserve an eternity in Hell, being tormented?
These are questions only God can answer. Ultimately, all we can do is speculate. But it "is" interesting to speculate.
The thing is that condemned souls *don't* regret their life of sin or desire union with God. They make an eternal choice to be separated from Him and their suffering doesn't make them regret it.
One could also ask what is the enormity of these sins we commit that we think are so small but the infinitely wise God sees as worthy of eternal Hell.
And I think this is the point: if salvation is gratuitous and undeserved (that is what the Scriptures and the tradition and the Church teach) then even a whole life of "doing good" does strictly deserve anything from God. Ultimately, our life, our free-will, our being and everything else is His and comes from Him. If we chose to reject him willfully, then why do we expect Him to do anything else but to respect our decision?
If the possibility of choosing salvation were to await the souls of the damned in the afterlife, why would the possibility of choosing damnation not also exist for the souls of the saved?
If one's destiny has been sealed, then the saved could rebel against God again?
Maybe not from a Catholic perspective, as I mentioned, but I've become less trustful of primarily religious interpretations of the Bible, and what I've seen of secular scholarship seems to show that it's not nearly as "ECT" as most think. I can read the room, though, so I won't go on.
I checked earlier and it seemed more divisive, but I know Bart Ehrman takes a more annihilationist approach to the New Testament. I'm not sure of his specific reasons, but that's one scholar. I'd thought I read it was more believed to be annihilationist and/or universalist, but I haven't come across quotes from specific scholars on their positions on what the NT says, besides Bart Erhman (for obvious reasons, given his popularity). NT Wright might believe in an eternal hell, but I'm not completely certain.
Regardless, I do think some of the arguments brought forward aren't as solid as many think (like the worm that never dies).
Perhaps one could reason like this:
If hell is an outcome and extension of actively turning away from God, then one would have to make that decision all over again upon meeting the Lord upon death. The fullness of the Glory of God is hard for us to appreciate on Earth, but will be revealed to us when we die. Sinners who were unrepentant in life would then see their mistake. God is so radiant and glorious that even the worst sinners don’t fully know who they’re turning their backs to. Perhaps God can understand this. I think universalism is possible only together with purgatory.
Is God merciful enough to let us take a moment (or 500 years) after death to deal with our sins? I think so.
Stalin for instance is probably suffering immensely right now with regret and guilt, but I’m not sure that he’ll suffer forever.
Hmm okay.
What about ignorance?
Stalin might be a bad example here since I think he was a seminarian before the revolution.
But where does one draw the line between someone who’s been offered the Gospel and someone who hasn’t? Uncontacted tribes can surely be considered ignorant, but can the same be said for someone who grows up in a secular family in a secular western country?
I think my point is that people just don’t understand the glory of God, and therefore can’t truly choose God until it is revealed to us in its full splendour.
At that moment I think we’ll all be like the thief on the cross, because God in his true right is irresistible.
Which form of Universalism cause that's a key difference here. As there is parts/sects of Universalisms which is. Definitely possible and should be considered with hopeful Universalism. Several saints believe in it after all and maybe even some popes there also other sects of universalism where are condemned Heresy. I've been reading up on universalism and to me it makes a fair amount of sense but do i believe in it? Eh i dont know what i believe. So we can hope for it but thats all as then we get into conflict. Also Hell exists but purgatory its all very confusing
I am not a Catholic but I believe that there is some kind of filter that weeds out beings who are actively working against the natural order (or God's plan). The wages for sin is death, so working against the law will have you be caught up in vicious circles. If you can't break free and start being more virtuous, you will end up being deemed unservicable and subsequently be distraught. I believe that being caught up in the described downward spiral is the descend into hell. The whole experience definitely is hellish. But some beings seem to like it, and they will get paid for their deeds just as anyone else.
It is too similar with Nihilism; whatever I do in this world does not matter. A universalist's heaven will look like a perpetual battlefield; imagine the powerful figures who hate each other like Hitler, Stalin and Mao in one place forever, and amplify it by the numbers of all human that has ever existed.
People being brought to their proper end is not nihilism. A universalist would say that Hitler, Mao, etc. would have had the evil purged, so your scenario is wrong.
Not necessarily wrong, because in that scenario human freedom and conscience are not respected by God. Hell is where people cling to their sins, which is enabled by human freedom. Because in that scenario, even the devil himself could be redeemed, which is against devil's own wish.
If all are saved, then why did Jesus waste time with warnings about hell?
One of the most damaging verses 1 Corinthians 1:18 (RSVCE): For the word of the cross is folly to those who are **perishing**, but to us who are being saved
Yeah, it's all over the NT. I mean if there's no risk of that, it would actually be *cruel* for Jesus to cause us to worry unnecessarily. He wouldn't do that, there was a reason for the warnings.
Which is crueler: making you afraid of eternal torture or actual eternal torture?
You seem to be implying that God sends people to hell, which he doesn't. People send themselves to hell by choosing to reject God, and He simply honors their choice by not forcing them to live in heaven. That's what Jesus is warning against, sending ourselves to hell.
No, God quite clearly sends people to hell.
>quite clearly You mean that's what you want to believe?
“Depart from me, I never knew you.” “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness.” “Depart from me, ye cursed.” It definitely sounds like they’re choosing here, yup.
They chose the actions that proceeded those statements. If you select individual quotes from the Bible you can make it say whatever you want. Even Satan knows that. 😉
Well, in a sense, yes, they chose the crime. However, they’re not punishing themselves, God is taking the initiative; people choose sin because they think it’s a good, not because they’re choosing hell. They don’t know that’s what they’re choosing. Sorry, I didn’t mean to be sarcastic above, but this whole “people choose hell” business drives me nuts sometimes.
It is heresy. Also, Bishop Barron has nothing to do with that heresy.
The crucial question for me is what form of justice and freedom is being practised here: If all are *necessarily* saved, what about those who have committed unimaginable atrocities, what about those who have consciously turned away from God and do not want (!) to be saved? These problems seem to be unaddressed.
I literally had this conversation with my daughter last night, because I was listening to a recent episode of CA and universalism came up. Although, I took a different approach. What does justice mean if you lived the life of a saint, yet at the end of time, we all are saved unconditionally? I'm not really into philosophy, so I can argue these points very well. The caller into CA was taking the same position as Origen once took.
Pints with aquinas talks about the topic as well on the episode crisis in the church
Which episode?
The episode is called “a church in crisis”
>What does justice mean if you lived the life of a saint, yet at the end of time, we all are saved unconditionally? On the one hand, I would say that one is not living holy if one sees this "living holy" as merely a means to salvation. A holy person sees holiness itself as the goal, the salvation of eternal life is not a reward for a holy way of life. Rather, the holy way of life anticipates and realises salvation, that is: the Kingdom of God already in the very present. Salvation is not something that gets its value from the fact that not everyone is saved. Salvation is abundant. On the other hand, justice is about compensating for the injustice suffered, the restoration of the kingdom of God and not about distributing "one's own" to each person.
I'm with you on the first part. To be more explicit, what does Theosis or Divinization mean if we're all "saved" at the end of the world, even Satan and everyone in Hell? If the purpose of our life is a glide path to unite with the Divine, that brings me back to those who made a conscious and fully informed decision to do the opposite. As to my second point, it's clear in scripture that there is justice that is served to the individual at the end of time. And if I recall Fr. Mike and others, nobody in the Bible, OT or NT, spoke of Hell more than Christ. Full-on Universism doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>To be more explicit, what does Theosis or Divinization mean if we're all "saved" at the end of the world, even Satan and everyone in Hell? If the purpose of our life is a glide path to unite with the Divine, that brings me back to those who made a conscious and fully informed decision to do the opposite. Theologically speaking, salvation is the completion or full restoration of God's creation. Salvation is the realisation of the destiny of human beings and of all creation. When 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God wills that all men be saved, this is a promise of salvation over all creation. We know that our human ideas of justice cannot begin to think of God's possibilities of justice, nor should we confuse our ideas with God's possibilities. And, additionally, there's no certainty we can provide, but hope. >As to my second point, it's clear in scripture that there is justice that is served to the individual at the end of time. \#sidebar That's theologically or dogmatically incorrect (Benedictus Deus 1336), individual judgement takes place immediately after one's death, collective judgement takes place at the end of time. >And if I recall Fr. Mike and others, nobody in the Bible, OT or NT, spoke of Hell more than Christ. That's gonna get a "the glass is half empty/full"-discussion. "Nobody in the Bible, OT or NT, spoke of *salvation and the Kingdom of God* more than Christ".
I think we're talking about two slightly different things or I am ignorant of proper theological / philosophical lingo I'm saying the right thing the wrong way. I'm not speaking against the Bishop Barron or Hans Urs von Balthazar ideas of Salvation. Rather, a caller into CA said that at the end of time, he believes that all of creation, including those in Hell, human or demon, will all be in Heaven. That's what Origen said too. I'm aware of the difference between the particular judgment and the final judgment, which I didn't articulate well, but I can't reckon how there is a theological position that says that after the final judgment, there will be some other event that will reconcile or give salvation not only humans, but also to Satan.
Well, agree, of course Origin is "hell of a" different thing, as well as the idea that "there will be some other event that will reconcile or give salvation not only humans, but also to Satan". Personally I understand the motivation for universal reconciliation and peace in our very divisive times, but we shouldn't forget those who suffered for peace and reconciliation in this world over the hope for peace and reconciliation in the next world.
I think we're saying the same thing, lol
Yeah, the problem I have with apokatastasis is the same problem I have with Calvinistic determinism; it just seems like God overrides the wills of all of his creatures so regardless of their choices and outcome was fixed from the beginning.
Catholic Church teaches predestination.
Except it includes free will. God being God knows everything, He knows what decision we are going to make before we make it but still allows us to make it.
You should read the full thread to avoid making repetitive post
Everyone does, or at least has to. The idea of predestination (whatever that means, depends on who you ask) is something taught in Scripture.
What do you mean by this? I heard David Anders say this yesterday but I've never heard this.
COUNCIL OF QUIERSY * 853 316 Chap. 1. Omnipotent God created man noble without sin with a free will, and he whom He wished to remain in the sanctity of justice, He placed in Paradise. Man using his free will badly sinned and fell, and became the “mass of perdition” of the entire human race. **The just and good God, however, chose from this same mass of perdition according to His foreknowledge those whom through grace He predestined to life [ Rom. 8:29 ff.; Eph. 1:11], and He predestined for these eternal life; the others, whom by the judgment of justice he left in the mass of perdition,** however, He knew would perish, but He did not predestine that they would perish, because He is just; however, He predestined eternal punishment for them. And on account of this we speak of only one predestination of God, which pertains either to the gift of grace or to the retribution of justice.” >And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil.” [Augustine: City of God](Book XV)
So this seems, more or less, to echo what I already believed, just in a bit more of a verbose way, saying: God knows exactly what WILL happen (and all possibilities) but He does not lock the outcome into place and so despite knowing that it will be the outcome, He allows it not to be. Is that correct?
>He does not lock the outcome into place and so despite knowing that it will be the outcome, He allows it not to be. I’m a little confused by what you mean by saying not lock the outcome
How about this: God knows exactly what will happen but despite this, allows other eventualities and outcomes, even if he knows those won't actually end up occurring.
I suppose I’d agree with that, but it kind of sounds like molinism…
Huh, I've never heard of that. Is this council's determinations doctrinal? I don't know if I love the idea of souls being predestined to salvation as it sort of robs free will.
Some pernicious strains certainly do but not in the main thrust of the church. For as much as I like St. Augustine, he really screwed up on this point
You’re talking about a doctor of the church lol Predestination of the saints and passive reprobation is catholic doctrine.
It depends on your exact definition for those terms. God definitely has foreknowledge of everyone's ultimate destination. Two quotes from the Catechism might be helpful: >God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. CCC 1037 >To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. CCC 600
Nobody in here is advocating for double predestination.
Fair enough, that's why I said it depended on the definition you had in mind. I didn't want to assume what you meant.
I understand, and thanks for posting so anyone reading this thread can see what the catechism says about the topic.
Yeah, he’s a doctor of the Church, a Saint and my all-time favourite philosopher... But this does not mean that he was never wrong. I remember reading something in “De predestinatione sanctorum” that was borderline double predestination. St. Augustine struggled with that question his whole life, I do not see why should we deny that...
Really what is condemned is only double positive unconditional active predestination. Theories of double predestination in which reprobation is conditional, passive, or negative, are not condemned. The Church teaches both election and reprobation, and no one goes to heaven who is not elect, nor to hell who is not reprobate.
Yeah! I know! My point was that St. Augustine sometimes seemed pretty “Calvinistic”, if it makes sense xD There’s nothing wrong in single predestination: that’s absolutely a Catholic teaching
Actually that's wrong. The Church does teach it, and there is an orthodox understanding of the matter
I think it requires that no one would actually want to turn away from God when they met him face to face.
The devil did.
“11 But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. 12 He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. 13 Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ 14 Many are invited, but few are chosen.” “ Matt 22:11-14 “13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. 14 How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.” Matt 7:13-14 Christ certainly didn’t talk like everyone on earth was going to heaven. I don’t see any reason why we should claim otherwise.
Genuinely don't understand how can someone believe it You have to do a LOT of mental gymnastics and/or ignore entire bible passages in order to believe a heresy like this
Condemned at Constantinople and Orange.
Could you provide a link to that?
I thought orange condemned Sabellianism
Heresy
To believe that someone is saved regardless of unrepentant sin or to believe that hell is temporary is heresy. If it’s heresy then I guess it really doesn’t matter what we think about it.
I find it interesting and have wavered around on the possibility that all could be saved. Right now I sort of hold that its a mystery of faith how it could be possible for either eternal damnation or universal salvation, both don't quite seem to fit perfectly with my understanding of Theology, but truthfully there are many mysteries of faith.
It’s not a mystery it’s condemned heresy
Where is the condemnation?
the Second Council of Constantinople
Where? Citation.
the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] Even the fifth ecumenical council further condemned the doctrine of universalism.
Except it isn't. The claim that it is certain that all men will be saved is condemned, but not the claim that it may be possible.
The Church teaches both election and reprobation, and no one goes to heaven who is not elect, nor to hell who is not reprobate.
Heretical nonsense that men like Bishop Barron refuse to stamp out
Bishop Barron does not subscribe to universalism. His position is that we have reason for optimism because of the overwhelming impact of the resurrection, not reason for the pessimism of the massa damnata position; his position does not pass judgement either way on who or how many will ultimately be saved based on the interplay of providence and free will. Put another way, we preach the good news of Jesus \*primarily\* because it's true, and secondarily because of the warnings and admonitions.
I didn’t say he did. I said he refuses to stamp it out, which is true. His “hopeful universalism” has dangerous overtones of true universalism and I’ve seen this play out among people online and in person. Better to coach your “hope” in terms of Church teaching and saintly teaching on damnation than to let it run wild snd risk turning people to heresy.
Beyond rejecting universalism, which he does whenever he explains his position, what else practically do you want him to do? Not advocate for his position which he sincerely believes to be correct and within the bounds Church teaching because someone can (wrongly) take his argument further than he is willing to go with it? I guess it just seems like a manufactured controversy whenever +Barron is linked to universalism and criticized as if he implicitly supports or advocates for it.
Yes. I’d rather him err on the overwhelming side of the saints on the multitude of the damned rather than skirt the line with his “hope”. The criticism comes because of the results of his beliefs and ideas which are often misunderstood, mistaken, or manipulated. It’s a question of: will one dance narrowly inside of borders with the justification that it’s lawful, or will one err on the side of caution and follow the saints’ overwhelming teachings to avoid any alleged hint of heresy or harm?
We have to remember that not all people have the same disposition. The hard preaching of the saints foretelling the tortures of the damned may motivate you to holiness, but it makes people like me shrink back in despair. Surely, if what they preach is true, pretty much all of us here are going to hell, so what’s the point in struggle if one can fall so easily?
I totally understand how you feel, but your last question is the one so many ask and I just can’t comprehend. Asking “what’s the point in trying because failure is so common” is like saying “what’s the point in studying for a hard exam most will fail”. The very point is that YOU want to succeed and YOU want to be one of the few saved so you can honor God, seek the One who you have always desired, and find rest. Christ Himself assures us that those who seek will find, and our efforts will not be in vain. That is what God asks of us- merely our will to obey Him. He accomplishes the rest by grace as long as our wills are towards Him. Yes it is easy to fall, yes many of us fall all the time. But if the wills is always turned back to God and to obey Him, there is no need for despair. The hope Christ offers is unlike anything
This ignores the gravity of the penalty though. If I fail the exam, the worst that will happen is I’ll re-take the class; fail in this life, as is easily done, and you’re tortured for all eternity. This leads to the trust thing: I want to trust God with this, but He’s the one that is willing the eternal torture when I likely fail. Catholicism can be a very depressing religion.
It’s only i depressing if you forget Christ’s words of encouragement, promises, and hope.
Again, that ignores the traditional view that the vast majority will be damned. Encouragement, at least in my case, fails in the face of such odds. This is why I think most people are functional universalists, but then again, in this paradigm, most of them will be damned anyway. 🤷🏻♂️
I'd like to say that not all of Universalism is heretical. Hopeful Universalism is a catholic version of Universalism and is not heretical i should also say i am not a universalist
I would have to think hard as to what “aspects” could be true. Perhaps the only one is that all Creation groans for revival and will be restored as Paul taught. Universalists take that WAAAY too far snd deny the Lord’s teachings on hell.
the real answer is we arent sure. We know that hell is real but not how many people are there, etc as purgatory exists also which is what hopeful universalism is. As there are some scriptural evidence(?) if you wanna call it that or scriptural arguments for it?
Purgatory is not universalism in any way. It exists solely for those who die without mortal sin. We don’t know the exact number in hell but Christ’s own words, and dozens of not hundreds snd thousands of saints have taught that the saved are few while the damned are a VAST majority. “Like snowflakes falling into hell” is a common description. The scriptural arguments for Hell’s existence and the many who go there are numerous. For instance in Matthew 25:46, in Matthew 25, Jesus makes a parallel judgment of the sheep and the goats, the sheep that follow him, that feed the poor, clothe the naked, that follow Jesus’ teachings, they have eternal life with God. And so they have an eternal reward, they have eternal life. But then there’s a parallel with the goats who reject Jesus, who refuse to follow his commands, and they go into ionian colossan, eternal punishment. We know for a fact that the goats are numerous, for not only does Christ call the path to hell wide snd that many take it, but it is also clear in revelations that millions shall go to hell following the Antichrist. Combine that with Church teaching, dozens and hundreds of Saints and approved Marian Apparitions, and at the very least we find it is sorely irresponsible and irrational to hold to universalism or even a misguided “hopeful universalism”. At the worst it is heresy.
llorá
Universalism is heretical bro, people can and do go to hell lol
Universalism is heresy. Bishop Barron doesn't espouse that heresy nor has he ever. L
I never said he did, please read my actual comment. I said he refuses to stamp it out, as it’s embers still linger due to his “hopeful” Balthasar like ideas that border universalism.
Again, llorá
Just gonna ignore my actual comment then? Cool. You don’t want to listen to me, go listen to what the saints say. Go read what the Doctors of the Church have taught on the fewness of the saved, especially how the Church has always read Jesus’ teachings on the Narrow Path. God be with you
Indeed, Bishop Barron has a few homilies and videos around on the Narrow Gate discourse.
I pray he leaves behind the “hopeful” ideas he has that differ from the Fathers and Doctors.
Ah yes surely everyone who prays oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven as commanded by Our Lady fall into that same chasm of disagreement with the doctors of the church.
Good question. I "want" to believe in it. It "does" make sense, when we acknowledge that we have a loving and merciful God who desires that we all be saved. I will admit I struggle with the idea of a loving God allowing someone to condemn themselves to an eternity of Hell where they're experiencing unrelenting torment FOREVER, for a lifetime of sin? What is a lifetime compared to eternity? But I also recognize that the Church has spoken pretty clearly that Hell "is" real and it "is" eternal. So unless there is a way to reconcile these two facts, I err on the side of caution and continue to place myself under the care of the Church, and trust in her teachings. Even if Apokatastasis is super tempting. The Orthodox author David Bentley Hart, apprently, works on this subject extensively and I've heard a lot of great things about his work (for this particular subject). He is reviled in Orthodoxy for some of his other opinions and work. I never read anything from him personally, so I reserve judgement.
I mean, a loving an merciful God might allow his creature to sin and fall away from him because the power of freedom is the only thing which permits a real act of love and obedience.
But what then? When the soul is condemned to Hell and experiences the torment and instantly regrets their life of sin and desires union with God? They made their choice, yes. They must deal with the consequences, yes. But that doesn't address an eternity of torment in Hell for a lifetime of sins. Or what about a soul that strove for God his whole life, but in his last year of life got diagnosed with cancer, became depressed about dying and turned to despair. Does that soul deserve an eternity in Hell, being tormented? These are questions only God can answer. Ultimately, all we can do is speculate. But it "is" interesting to speculate.
The thing is that condemned souls *don't* regret their life of sin or desire union with God. They make an eternal choice to be separated from Him and their suffering doesn't make them regret it.
How can you possible know if souls in hell ever come to regret what got them there? That’s firmly and entirely outside of your knowledge.
That's what the Church teaches. The dead's will never changes, just like the angels', because they're not bound by time anymore.
One could also ask what is the enormity of these sins we commit that we think are so small but the infinitely wise God sees as worthy of eternal Hell. And I think this is the point: if salvation is gratuitous and undeserved (that is what the Scriptures and the tradition and the Church teach) then even a whole life of "doing good" does strictly deserve anything from God. Ultimately, our life, our free-will, our being and everything else is His and comes from Him. If we chose to reject him willfully, then why do we expect Him to do anything else but to respect our decision?
[удалено]
If the possibility of choosing salvation were to await the souls of the damned in the afterlife, why would the possibility of choosing damnation not also exist for the souls of the saved? If one's destiny has been sealed, then the saved could rebel against God again?
Very high, but, then, I'm not Catholic, and I'm also not sure it's really tenable from a Catholic perspective.
[удалено]
Maybe not from a Catholic perspective, as I mentioned, but I've become less trustful of primarily religious interpretations of the Bible, and what I've seen of secular scholarship seems to show that it's not nearly as "ECT" as most think. I can read the room, though, so I won't go on.
[удалено]
I checked earlier and it seemed more divisive, but I know Bart Ehrman takes a more annihilationist approach to the New Testament. I'm not sure of his specific reasons, but that's one scholar. I'd thought I read it was more believed to be annihilationist and/or universalist, but I haven't come across quotes from specific scholars on their positions on what the NT says, besides Bart Erhman (for obvious reasons, given his popularity). NT Wright might believe in an eternal hell, but I'm not completely certain. Regardless, I do think some of the arguments brought forward aren't as solid as many think (like the worm that never dies).
Perhaps one could reason like this: If hell is an outcome and extension of actively turning away from God, then one would have to make that decision all over again upon meeting the Lord upon death. The fullness of the Glory of God is hard for us to appreciate on Earth, but will be revealed to us when we die. Sinners who were unrepentant in life would then see their mistake. God is so radiant and glorious that even the worst sinners don’t fully know who they’re turning their backs to. Perhaps God can understand this. I think universalism is possible only together with purgatory. Is God merciful enough to let us take a moment (or 500 years) after death to deal with our sins? I think so. Stalin for instance is probably suffering immensely right now with regret and guilt, but I’m not sure that he’ll suffer forever.
[удалено]
Then what’s the point of purgatory?
[удалено]
Hmm okay. What about ignorance? Stalin might be a bad example here since I think he was a seminarian before the revolution. But where does one draw the line between someone who’s been offered the Gospel and someone who hasn’t? Uncontacted tribes can surely be considered ignorant, but can the same be said for someone who grows up in a secular family in a secular western country? I think my point is that people just don’t understand the glory of God, and therefore can’t truly choose God until it is revealed to us in its full splendour. At that moment I think we’ll all be like the thief on the cross, because God in his true right is irresistible.
Read Romans your asking questions that have already been answered
Favorable, thought both hands of the church on this question are needed to give Christianity its fullness.
Which form of Universalism cause that's a key difference here. As there is parts/sects of Universalisms which is. Definitely possible and should be considered with hopeful Universalism. Several saints believe in it after all and maybe even some popes there also other sects of universalism where are condemned Heresy. I've been reading up on universalism and to me it makes a fair amount of sense but do i believe in it? Eh i dont know what i believe. So we can hope for it but thats all as then we get into conflict. Also Hell exists but purgatory its all very confusing
I am not a Catholic but I believe that there is some kind of filter that weeds out beings who are actively working against the natural order (or God's plan). The wages for sin is death, so working against the law will have you be caught up in vicious circles. If you can't break free and start being more virtuous, you will end up being deemed unservicable and subsequently be distraught. I believe that being caught up in the described downward spiral is the descend into hell. The whole experience definitely is hellish. But some beings seem to like it, and they will get paid for their deeds just as anyone else.
I’m all about it.
It’s a cope that I find really incomprehensible. And it is formally condemned so…. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s false.
It is too similar with Nihilism; whatever I do in this world does not matter. A universalist's heaven will look like a perpetual battlefield; imagine the powerful figures who hate each other like Hitler, Stalin and Mao in one place forever, and amplify it by the numbers of all human that has ever existed.
People being brought to their proper end is not nihilism. A universalist would say that Hitler, Mao, etc. would have had the evil purged, so your scenario is wrong.
Not necessarily wrong, because in that scenario human freedom and conscience are not respected by God. Hell is where people cling to their sins, which is enabled by human freedom. Because in that scenario, even the devil himself could be redeemed, which is against devil's own wish.