[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg29991 date=1120197648] I SEE CHAINS AS METAPHORICAL, BROKE THE CHAINS, THE FETTERSAS IN THE BONDS WHICH BOUND THEM TO HADES.
very convenient.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg29991 date=1120197648] AND YES OUR CHURCH DOES BELIEVE IT WAS REFERING TO JUDAS, I HEARD A SERMON FROM POPE SHENUDA AND HE REFERED TO IT.
The Coptic Orthodox Church is not like the Catholic Church. The Coptic Church does not hold to Papal Infallibility. Popes/Bishops/Synods are supposed to follow Tradition, not create it.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg29991 date=1120197648] SEE ANGLICAN, THERES THE PROBLEM RIGHT THERE, THE PEOPLE WHOSE RELIGIOUS VIEWS RELFLEST REBELLION RATHER THAT THEOLOGY, THERE BELIEFS ARE BASED ON BELIEVING IN SUCH IDEALS WHICH GO AGAINST OUR CHURCH.
I STILL BELIEVE TO PROFESS THIS IS HERESY, LOOK AT THE ORTHODOX CHURCH BELIEFS NOT OTHERS.
First off, this guy lived in the 19th century....a long time before the Anglican Church reached the depths it has now. Secondly, if he makes a correct observation, then it is a correct observation regardless of what church/religion he is in.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg29991 date=1120197648] AGAIN DISAGREE WHOSE TO DEFINE CORRECT. SATANIST-DONT THINK SO BUDDY
AS U SAID "according to Thomas Allin" NOT ACCORDING TO OUR CHURCH AND ACCORDING TO WHO HE IS RITE? TO U? DOESNT MAKE IT RITE. IF A SATANIST PROCLAIM WAT THIS MAN SAID IS RITE, STILL DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT.
So if a Satanist says that 2 + 2 + 4, then he's wrong?
mate, who said this thomas guy is correct??? he made an observation, his opinion on how it SHOULD be translated, who said he was rite???? who said yes this is a correct observation?? who? u?
"Coptic Church does not hold to Papal Infallibility. Popes/Bishops/Synods are supposed to follow Tradition, not create it."
oh so now ur saying that our pope isnt capable? and that he creates our traditions? who are we as coptics more likely to believe, our pontif, who is a eminent theologian, or a anglican guy u made a subjective observation in the 19th century? im not sayin that we hold to papal infallibilty, im saying that he as theologian not a pope is correct and according to the ORTHODOX faith, wat he says abibes by it.
bout ur remark on the metaphorical nature of the chains, why cant it be a metaphor? wen christ says if ur hand causes u to sin, cut it off, do we take that literally? when he says dont take the speck out of ur brother's eye beofre taking the log out of ur own eye, do we take that literally? how convenient.
i think u meant 2+2=4 this is an objective issue, we are discussing a subjective issue.
are u even coptic? because for a coptic to rely on views other than our own, seems surreal. for a coptic to say that satanist can hold true biblical views sounds rather unorthodox.
"Coptic Church does not hold to Papal Infallibility. Popes/Bishops/Synods are supposed to follow Tradition, not create it."
oh so now ur saying that our pope isnt capable? and that he creates our traditions?
I don't think that's what was being said at all. The fact that our Pope is fallible automatically implies he can make mistakes. There is no shame in this. Even the most competent of theologians can make occasional mistakes. Our Pope included. It is absolutley correct that our Pope is an accomplished and capable student and teacher of the Bible, but he is not beyond mistakes.
For example in Comparative Theology he writes:"We baptise infants on the belief of their parents, but our Protestant brethren do not believe in Paedobaptism since they condition the belief of the baptised prior to baptising him." Which is true of the sects that arose after the Reformation in Europe (and then spread to the US) but not of the majority of the Churches of the Reformation. I live in a Calvinist country, a Reformed country so to speak, paedobaptism is unquestionably practiced by all of them! The mistake here is to say that all Protestants practice adult baptism in opposition to paedopbaptism. Our Pope is simply not infallible, and proof of this is simply that.
I think it is a great disgrace to confuse our Pope with the Roman one. Our Pope is based in Biblical and traditional teachings. Not the papal sophistries of the later Roman Catholic traditions (which are deviations from Scripture and Tradition). Love of our Pope must not lead us into the deviations and misconceptions of Roman Catholic papalism.
u made a subjective observation in the 19th century? im not sayin that we hold to papal infallibilty, im saying that he as theologian not a pope is correct and according to the ORTHODOX faith, wat he says abibes by it.
The observation of Thomas Allin that the early fathers taught that Jesus' ministry saved all from hades is not subjective, it is an objective fact of history. I have not seen HH. Pope Shenouda deny this, and I don't expect him to deny this since he is precisely an Orthodox Patriarch and the idea that only the righteous were saved from hades is a later Roman Catholic innovation and is just as un-Orthodox as is the doctrine of purgatory.
If anything, the observation of Thomas Allin brings him closer to Orthodoxy, and in fact in the 1930-ies the Anglicans were very very close to re-uniting with the Eastern Orthodox (and thereby become Orthodox) but they sadly rejected re-union, and today we see where it has brought them. But todays Anglicanism is nothing like the "orthodox" Anglicanism of say, a 100 yrs ago.
bout ur remark on the metaphorical nature of the chains, why cant it be a metaphor? wen christ says if ur hand causes u to sin, cut it off, do we take that literally?
It is certainly possible that it is a metaphor. But a metaphor of what? Of breaking free from somethikng which previously held one captive,.. So either way the breaking of the chains speaks of the redemption of all who were in hades and as such testifies to the invincible and glorious power of Christ unto salvation. Glory be to His Name!
The "plundering of hell" by Christ as He descended into hades, testifies to the fact God will always be the victor over evil. That evil can never have the last and final say in a matter. Unless we accept the Manichean dualism that believes in "eternal evil" that is an evil co-eternal with God (making God and devil equals which is polytheism and a heresy).
for a coptic to say that satanist can hold true biblical views sounds rather unorthodox.
I have even encountered a situation where a prof. of New Testament studies could explain many doctrines correctly, but who was nevertheless an atheist. He taught NT theology at a University,... As an atheists. Even in this country we have a theologian and former minister who writes about theology a lot and he does so correctly many times (but of course he also says many things which are untrue), but he too has become an atheist. It is not all impossible that a non-Christian can understand a doctrine of Christianity correctly. It is impossible, however, that a non-Christian have "experiental, living, knowledge" of Christian doctrine.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=0#msg29947 date=1120186172] by reading the old testement u see that there where many evil doers, ur saying they were rasied to paradise?
"Christ will descend that in order that all, both on earth and in heaven and in hades, may obtain salvation from Him."
"all in hades"
so christ freed satan?
think bout it. quote from the bible.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=0#msg29957 date=1120186963] this is a contridiction. ask urself how does that make sense? how is that ethical? how is that fair? how is that Christian?
u think that people who were, like i said b4, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, or extortioners will be amongst the saints in paradise?
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=15#msg29960 date=1120187687] really for people who practised homosexuallity, which "God hates" they were given passage to heaven? where in our belief do we profess that people got a second chance?
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=15#msg29972 date=1120194759] ok the sections in hades part is good, but u think that the ppl bein tourmented were freed?
see i believe that the were in the righteous section were freed.
G.J.I., can I ask you what your problem is with God giving people His grace? If God decides to save a homosexual (who He does not hate) who are we to say this is unfair? I'm sorry if you feel that it is unjust and unfair that people who are bigger sinners than you are getting into heaven, but let's take a look at James 2:8-13: " If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder."If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! " NIV
Mercy triumphs over judgment! Indeed! Pray that God will show his mercy, according to his mercy and not according to our sins!
And I'm not sure where the argument about Judas is going here. Luke 22:22 reads: "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" Whether or not it would have been good for him to be born means little to the argument over whether or not he was delivered out of Hades by Christ.
I wonder if anyone has read the article I posted the link to earlier. Because it addresses this issue exactly. The first few paragraphs of the article says: "The Byzantine and old Russian icons of the Resurrection of Christ never depict the resurrection itself, i.e., Christ coming out of the grave. They rather depict ‘the descent of Christ into Hades’, or to be more precise, the rising of Christ out of hell. Christ, sometimes with a cross in his hand, is represented as raising Adam, Eve and other personages of the biblical history from hell. Under the Saviour’s feet is the black abyss of the nether world; against its background are castles, locks and debris of the gates which once barred the way of the dead to resurrection. Though other motifs have also been used in creating the image of the Resurrection of Christ in the last several centuries[1: In particular, the image of the risen Christ coming out of the grave and holding a victory banner, borrowed from the Western tradition.], the above-described iconographic type is considered to be canonical, as it reflects the traditional teaching on the descent of Christ to hell, His victory over death, His raising of the dead and delivering them from hell where they were imprisoned before His Resurrection. It is to this teaching as an integral part of the dogmatic and liturgical tradition of the Christian Church that this paper is devoted.
The descent of Christ into Hades is one of the most mysterious, enigmatic and inexplicable events in New Testament history. In today’s Christian world, this event is understood differently. Liberal Western theology rejects altogether any possibility for speaking of the descent of Christ into Hades literally, arguing that the scriptural texts on this theme should be understood metaphorically. The traditional Catholic doctrine insists that after His death on the cross Christ descended to hell only to deliver the Old Testament righteous from it. A similar understanding is quite widespread among Orthodox Christians.
On the other hand, the New Testament speaks of the preaching of Christ in hell as addressed to the unrepentant sinners: ‘For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirit in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited’[2: 1 Pet. 3:18—21.]. However, many Church Fathers and liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church repeatedly underline that having descended to hell, Christ opened the way to salvation for all people, not only the Old Testament righteous. The descent of Christ into Hades is perceived as an event of cosmic significance involving all people without exception. They also speak about the victory of Christ over death, the full devastation of hell and that after the descent of Christ into Hades there was nobody left there except for the devil and demons. " http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx
If anyone actually wants to know about this issue and consider it carefully instead of trying to pass off into orthodoxy and heresy their own opinions on the way God should work, this article is a very good place to start.
In the Resurrection hymn we sing: 20. He broke Hades' gates and decended : Those who were in darkness he delivered Adam and his heirs, He saved and chose : Christ was crucified, buried, then rose http://www.suscopts.org/deacons/hymns/resurrection.pdf
And in the Doxology of the Resurrection and the Holy Fifty Days: Our mouth is filled with joy, And our tongue with rejoicing, For our Lord, Jesus Christ, Has risen from the dead.
By His power He abolished death, And made life to shine on us, He Who descended to The lower parts of the earth.
The gate keepers of Hades Saw Him and were afraid. He abolished the pangs of death, And He was not held by it.
He has broken the gates of brass, And cut asunder the bars of iron, And brought out his saved, With joy and rejoicing.
He lifted them up with Him, Into His place of rest. He saved them for the sake of His holy name, And revealed His power to them.
Therefore we are rich, In all perfect gifts, And in faith let us sing, Saying, Alleluia.
Allow me to offer some points against the implicit proposition implied by some; that Christ's descent into hades was for the purpose of redeeming each and every pre-New-Testament person regardless of their moral or religious state.
I believe GJI has made some valid points that should not be too quickly dismissed. Ofcourse one does not want to speculate upon the operations of God's saving grace, however it perplexes me when those who claim we are attempting to restrict God's saving grace simply by reiterating the Biblical testimony on the matter, choose to derestrict His Grace in contradiction to the very Biblical testimony performed under the inspiration of His very Grace.
God has declared that He cannot lie and that He cannot deny Himself. What He has testified to is absolute truth; He does not go back on His Word and we are in no position to make exceptions when such exceptions are motivated by emotion rather than reason.
1) Re: 1 Peter 3:18-20
There is nothing in these verses that necessitates the interpretation that all who died before the crucifixion of Christ were saved, regardless of their deeds or the nature of their faith; St Augustine himself rejected an interpretation of redemptive teaching by Christ per se.
In any event, we find that the "spirits" being referred to here are those of a specific period i.e. when the “long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah” (verse 20). The preceding verse (verse 19) does not even mention or hint at salvation or deliverance, rather it merely states that He went to these antediluvians and preached to them in the ministry of Noah, announcing His finished work on the Cross. Thus if salvation is involved in any event, it can be interpreted in the sense that Christ made an offer of salvation to those who had never before heard of Him and His Gospel, before their final judgment.
This is the view adopted by St Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata. St Clement asserts (6:6) that those who were deemed righteous according to The Law only required faith to complete their salvation, whereas those who were righteous according to natural law or their philosophies required both faith and repentance of their idolatrous ways. The view that those righteous were offered salvation is also the view held by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies Bk. 4 ch.27 when he states: "For this reason it was, that the Lord made His descent into the lower regions beneath the earth, proclaiming and preaching His advent there, and pronouncing the remission of sins that was received by those who believe in Him. Now it was that all those believed in Him and who had hope towards Him; those who proclaimed and prophesied of His advent, and who submitted to His dispensations; those righteous men, the patriarchs and the prophets…"
Alternatively, Christ’s preaching ministry may be interpreted in the light of Colossians 2:14-15, such that it had its purpose in proclaiming His victory to the enemies; the demon spirits imprisoned in the abyss, such that he proclaimed His triumph which was paradoxically achieved through His death. In the light of 2 Peter 2:4, 9 the spirits being referred to may be identified as fallen angels i.e. demons. In the context of Noah’s period, this is clearly a reference to the divine sons of God of Genesis 6:2, who through their carnally motivated intermarriage with the daughters of Cain, displeased the Lord who then set their life to a limit of 120 years, giving them a chance to repent which they failed to take heed to. This latter interpretation is supported by extra-biblical tradition as found in the book of 1 Enoch, where the righteous Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) goes at the command of God, to the place where these very fallen angels are imprisoned and he proclaims to them their very impending judgment and the punishment due for their sins. The parallel to Peter’s epistle is too remarkable to just be quickly dismissed. Being aware of this extra-biblical tradition, it is plausible that Peter depicted Enoch in a typological sense i.e. like a "type" of Christ and that in 1 Peter 3:19 he portrays the Lord Christ as a kind of "second Enoch" who descends to the spirit world to proclaim the evil spiritsr final downfall (compare Col. 2:15).
It is contrary to the scriptures to claim that those who died in sin, and who were neither righteous by the written law of God nor the natural law convicting their very conscious, would have a second chance. The scriptures explicitly and decisively assert that judgment directly proceeds death such that it is only during one’s lifetime that they are able to repent (Hebrews 3:15-4;11, 9:27). In the parable of Luke 16:19-31, Christ clearly teaches that there is no way for the rich man to escape his very sufferings because between the wicked and the righteous there exists a great chasm that is fixed such that those who wish to cross over to find themselves able to do so (Verse 26). Christ then goes on to warn the rich man that his living brothers only had the opportunity of repentance while they were alive (verses 29-31).
The urgency with which the issue of salvation was pressed on the sinners as seen for example in 2 Cor. 6:1-2 can only really be understood as one that is grounded in the conviction that once death takes place, our judgment is sealed. This point is made most explicitly by St Paul in 1 Thessolonians 4:13: “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.”
2) Regarding the patristic quotes which employ the word “all”:
Taking such statemnents to their literal extremes may also prove the heresy of universal salvation from the Biblical text itself: For example, St Paul states in 1 Corinthians:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive... (1Cor 15:22).
...we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.... God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them (2Cor 5:14, 19).
However, the fact of the matter is, the word "all" in its Greek or even its Hebrew linguistic context, does not necessarily mean "each and every single person"; but rather may indeed be simply referring to an overwhelming or substantial majority.
3) Regarding Mr Allin:
It was stated:
Actually: according to Thomas Allin, the proper way to translate that verse would be, "Good were it for Him( i.e. Jesus), if that man had not been born."
The problem with Mr Allin is that he is playing with semantics disconnected from their socio-historical context. As Professor Matthew Keener points out, the familiar expression of “better never to have been born” was common in secnd temple Jewish literature, employed as a pronouncement of frightful judgment (1 Enoch 38:2; 4 Ezra 7:69; 2 Bar. 10:6; 2 Enoch 41:2; Greek. Ezra 1:6, 21). Rendering the verse in a manner that finds precedent in second temple Jewish intertestamental literature, we find that the subject of the verse (i.e. the one whom it would have been good for, had he not have been born) is Judas; for he abused his free will, and instead of repenting, decided to take his own life, and thereby brought judgment upon himself. According to all that I have thus far stated in this post, there is no reason for us to conclude that Judas has a second chance after his death to gain salvation.
4) Re: blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
It was stated:
Actually, many of the Fathers believed that the "unforgiveable" sin could, in fact, be forgiven.
Nonsense. The unforgivable is by definition, in the simplest terms a continuous resistance of the Holy Spirit, and hence an unrepentant life. The Church fathers declared that repentance negates blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, such that it is not a case of the unforgivable sin being forgiven via repentance, but rather a case of repentance being evidence of the fact that the unforgivable sin is yet to be committed in the first place.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] Dear all,
Allow me to offer some points against the implicit proposition implied by some; that Christ's descent into hades was for the purpose of redeeming each and every pre-New-Testament person regardless of their moral or religious state.
I believe GJI has made some valid points that should not be too quickly dismissed. Ofcourse one does not want to speculate upon the operations of God's saving grace, however it perplexes me when those who claim we are attempting to restrict God's saving grace simply by reiterating the Biblical testimony on the matter, choose to derestrict His Grace in contradiction to the very Biblical testimony performed under the inspiration of His very Grace.
God has declared that He cannot lie and that He cannot deny Himself. What He has testified to is absolute truth; He does not go back on His Word and we are in no position to make exceptions when such exceptions are motivated by emotion rather than reason.
1) Re: 1 Peter 3:18-20
There is nothing in these verses that necessitates the interpretation that all who died before the crucifixion of Christ were saved, regardless of their deeds or the nature of their faith; St Augustine himself rejected an interpretation of redemptive teaching by Christ per se.
In any event, we find that the "spirits" being referred to here are those of a specific period i.e. when the “long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah” (verse 20). The preceding verse (verse 19) does not even mention or hint at salvation or deliverance, rather it merely states that He went to these antediluvians and preached to them in the ministry of Noah, announcing His finished work on the Cross. Thus if salvation is involved in any event, it can be interpreted in the sense that Christ made an offer of salvation to those who had never before heard of Him and His Gospel, before their final judgment.
This is the view adopted by St Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata. St Clement asserts (6:6) that those who were deemed righteous according to The Law only required faith to complete their salvation, whereas those who were righteous according to natural law or their philosophies required both faith and repentance of their idolatrous ways. The view that those righteous were offered salvation is also the view held by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies Bk. 4 ch.27 when he states: "For this reason it was, that the Lord made His descent into the lower regions beneath the earth, proclaiming and preaching His advent there, and pronouncing the remission of sins that was received by those who believe in Him. Now it was that all those believed in Him and who had hope towards Him; those who proclaimed and prophesied of His advent, and who submitted to His dispensations; those righteous men, the patriarchs and the prophets…"
Alternatively, Christ’s preaching ministry may be interpreted in the light of Colossians 2:14-15, such that it had its purpose in proclaiming His victory to the enemies; the demon spirits imprisoned in the abyss, such that he proclaimed His triumph which was paradoxically achieved through His death. In the light of 2 Peter 2:4, 9 the spirits being referred to may be identified as fallen angels i.e. demons. In the context of Noah’s period, this is clearly a reference to the divine sons of God of Genesis 6:2, who through their carnally motivated intermarriage with the daughters of Cain, displeased the Lord who then set their life to a limit of 120 years, giving them a chance to repent which they failed to take heed to. This latter interpretation is supported by extra-biblical tradition as found in the book of 1 Enoch, where the righteous Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) goes at the command of God, to the place where these very fallen angels are imprisoned and he proclaims to them their very impending judgment and the punishment due for their sins. The parallel to Peter’s epistle is too remarkable to just be quickly dismissed. Being aware of this extra-biblical tradition, it is plausible that Peter depicted Enoch in a typological sense i.e. like a "type" of Christ and that in 1 Peter 3:19 he portrays the Lord Christ as a kind of "second Enoch" who descends to the spirit world to proclaim the evil spiritsr final downfall (compare Col. 2:15).
It is contrary to the scriptures to claim that those who died in sin, and who were neither righteous by the written law of God nor the natural law convicting their very conscious, would have a second chance. The scriptures explicitly and decisively assert that judgment directly proceeds death such that it is only during one’s lifetime that they are able to repent (Hebrews 3:15-4;11, 9:27). In the parable of Luke 16:19-31, Christ clearly teaches that there is no way for the rich man to escape his very sufferings because between the wicked and the righteous there exists a great chasm that is fixed such that those who wish to cross over to find themselves able to do so (Verse 26). Christ then goes on to warn the rich man that his living brothers only had the opportunity of repentance while they were alive (verses 29-31).
The urgency with which the issue of salvation was pressed on the sinners as seen for example in 2 Cor. 6:1-2 can only really be understood as one that is grounded in the conviction that once death takes place, our judgment is sealed. This point is made most explicitly by St Paul in 1 Thessolonians 4:13: “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.”
2) Regarding the patristic quotes which employ the word “all”:
Taking such statemnents to their literal extremes may also prove the heresy of universal salvation from the Biblical text itself: For example, St Paul states in 1 Corinthians:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive... (1Cor 15:22).
...we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.... God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them (2Cor 5:14, 19).
However, the fact of the matter is, the word "all" in its Greek or even its Hebrew linguistic context, does not necessarily mean "each and every single person"; but rather may indeed be simply referring to an overwhelming or substantial majority.
3) Regarding Mr Allin:
It was stated:
Actually: according to Thomas Allin, the proper way to translate that verse would be, "Good were it for Him( i.e. Jesus), if that man had not been born."
The problem with Mr Allin is that he is playing with semantics disconnected from their socio-historical context. As Professor Matthew Keener points out, the familiar expression of “better never to have been born” was common in secnd temple Jewish literature, employed as a pronouncement of frightful judgment (1 Enoch 38:2; 4 Ezra 7:69; 2 Bar. 10:6; 2 Enoch 41:2; Greek. Ezra 1:6, 21). Rendering the verse in a manner that finds precedent in second temple Jewish intertestamental literature, we find that the subject of the verse (i.e. the one whom it would have been good for, had he not have been born) is Judas; for he abused his free will, and instead of repenting, decided to take his own life, and thereby brought judgment upon himself. According to all that I have thus far stated in this post, there is no reason for us to conclude that Judas has a second chance after his death to gain salvation.
4) Re: blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
It was stated:
Actually, many of the Fathers believed that the "unforgiveable" sin could, in fact, be forgiven.
Nonsense. The unforgivable is by definition, in the simplest terms a continuous resistance of the Holy Spirit, and hence an unrepentant life. The Church fathers declared that repentance negates blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, such that it is not a case of the unforgivable sin being forgiven via repentance, but rather a case of repentance being evidence of the fact that the unforgivable sin is yet to be committed in the first place.
Peace.
thankyou soo much Iqbal for clearing that up, much appreciated, May God bless ur blessed service.
ive been tryin to ask u if u can plz contribute to the type of prayer post, that wood be great thankyou.
Eusebius of Alexandria: "Christ will descend that in order that all, both on earth and in heaven and in hades, may obtain salvation from Him."
Saint Athanasius: "While the devil thought to kill one he is deprived of all .....cast out of hades, and sitting by the gates, sees all the fettered beings led forth by the courage of the Saviour."
Basil of Seleucia: "That which happened to the visible tomb (i.e. it was emptied upon His rising), the same happened to Hades the invisible."
M.F. Victorinus: "The Saviour descends into hades by that Passion of the Cross in order that He may set free every soul."
Dydimus (translated by, and therefore endorsed by, Saint Ambrose): "In the liberation of all no one remains a captive; at the time of the Lord's Passion he alone (the devil) was injured, who lost all the captives he was keeping."
St. Gregory of Nazianzus: "...until Christ loosed by His blood all who groan under Tartarean chains."
St. Gregory of Nazianzus: ".....all of whom (the dead) Thou shalt bring forth as Thy spoils from Hades."
St. Gregory of Nazianzus: "I believe Thou wilt bring forth from Hades as many mortals as it has imprisoned."
Ambrosiaster: "Christ snatched from hades all the devil lost, together with Christ, all whom he was keeping."
St. Jerome: "Our Lord descends....and was shut up in the eternal bars, in order that He might set free all who had been shut up."
St. Jerome: "The Lord descended to the place of punishment and torment, in which was the rich man (i.e. the one from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man) in order to liberate the prisoners."
Caesarius of Arles (repeated in St. Jerome's works, and therefore endorsed by him): "The eternal night of hell is illuminated as Christ descends.....the bonds of the damned, torn asunder, fell away.......every cry of the groaing is still. The captive souls loosed from bonds go forth from hell, and the Apostle's words come true, 'In Jesus' Name every knee bends of things in heaven, and earth, and under the earth."
Epiphanius: "Christ, like a swift-winged hawk, snatched away all that He had from the beginning, from the devil and left him (i.e. the devil) deserted."
St. John Chrysostom: "While the devil imagined that he had got hold of Christ, he lost all, in fact, whom he was keeping."
St. John Chrysostom: "The fire of hell is extinguished, the sleepless worm dies.....those who were in hades are set free from the bonds of the devil."
St. Cyril of Alexandria: "(Christ spoiled Hades) and left the devil there solitary and deserted."
St. Cyril of Alexandria: "Christ, wandering down even to Hades, has emptied the dark, hidden, unseen treasuries."
St. Peter Chrysologus: "The rule of hell perishes.....and all obtain pardon."
Proclus of Constantinople: "Today Christ emptied the entire treasury of death."
Proclus of Constantinople: "All the dead, wondering at His Passion, cry for joy, 'We are healed by His stripes!'"
Note: every single one of these quoted were pre-451 Fathers, so they are within the folds/heritage of the Holy Coptic Orthodox Church.
I don’t know why some people are going on u_stole_my_name's case... at least he got patristic teachings. so right now... I can’t trust anyone except him... because he showed what the fathers said about the issue… okay and some from Iqbal... lol...
I don’t know why some people are going on u_stole_my_name's case... at least he got patristic teachings.
The Church fathers are not infallible; some of the quotes in USMN’s posts come from those who had a tendency towards the heresy of universal salvation. Despite this tendency amongst many great theologians of the Church, the doctrine was anathemized by the Coptic Church at a synod that was under the direction of Pope Demetrius the Vinedresser. I too in fact referred to a figure who had this tendency (St Clement of Alexandria) however I believe I used sound Biblical exegesis in order to discern the truth of the matter.
Allow me to offer some points against the implicit proposition implied by some; that Christ's descent into hades was for the purpose of redeeming each and every pre-New-Testament person regardless of their moral or religious state.
For myself I would like to respond that the highlighted part is a qualifier of my position I do not find acceptable. Nor do I think the Fathers quoted would agree to this. It is my belief that anyone's salvation depends upon a personal response to Jesus Christ. Apparently the Fathers (and some others of us here) believed that Jesus' presence and ministry in hades was so powerful it saved all who were in it at that point in time.
However, even if "all" means an overwhelming, substantial, majority, it is still the salvation of those who died in their sins under the Old Testament. To me, the crux of the matter is Christ's absolute victory over hades, and His ability to free even the lost souls under the OT from hades. He came for all, not just those who lived during His ministry or after it. Salvation in Christ, in this sense, is available to all He choses to make it available to.
This does not necessaily imply that salvation will be universal, though it might be. The doctrine of universal salvation is not heresy, though some (among whom Sts. Augustine and Theophilus) have argued against it. Nor is the doctrine of universal salvation a license to sin. Sin is still death to the soul and one will receive the full fruits of sin unless truly repented off. No-one is reconciled to God while he or she willfully sins (is dedicated to sin rather than God). Universal salvation is a possible outcome if all would respond positively to Jesus Christ. Unconditional salvation (salvation that is forced on us) is heresy (it denies free-will) and alien to the Church. Unlimited salvation is, however, fully Orthodox.
But the extent of God's grace, and how it works, how it will accomplish God's purpose is not fully given to us to know, and certainly not debate about. I have (to my shame) done so before, but have learned (after being taught a lesson by Christ our God) the wisdom of the Fathers to not loose oneself (publicly) in doctrinal discussions that might confuse souls and do them more harm than good. What needs to be affirmed is that sin will not go unpunished and salvation is not automatically given to anyone against one's will and effort. Salvation is both worked for, and received by faith, in one singular act. It cannot be reduced to either the Roman Catholic doctrine of merits, nor to the Protestant doctrine of sola fide (faith alone). Salvation begins by faith and baptism, but will be completed when Christ will return in His Glory. Along the way we must struggle in our hearts to keep the faith and to keep practicing it, for only this unity of faith-and-works is saving faith.
Let us suffice in saying this and keep our faith in Christ obeying His commandments, and leave matters beyond us, to God.
For myself I would like to respond that the highlighted part is a qualifier of my position I do not find acceptable. Nor do I think the Fathers quoted would agree to this. It is my belief that anyone's salvation depends upon a personal response to Jesus Christ.
What is the effect of a personal response to the Grace of Christ if not the process of being lead to the sufficient religious and moral state in order to inherit the Kingdom of God? The fact of the matter is, not all respond to this grace, and this is the very unforgivable sin that Christ identifies as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
However, even if "all" means an overwhelming, substantial, majority, it is still the salvation of those who died in their sins under the Old Testament.
The Sacrafice of Christ was performed for all generations, which is a point im sure you obviously agree with. However as you have stated, our salvation is dependent on our personal response to Christ’s testimony which is manifest in many forms, and it is upon a positive response to such grace that the work of the Cross becomes effective. Those in hades who lived in corruption and idolatory due to a consistently willful resistance and hardness of the heart, dying without repentence, were certainly NOT redeemed by Christ from hades, and 1 Peter 3:18-20 certainly says nothing of the sort!
To me, the crux of the matter is Christ's absolute victory over hades, and His ability to free even the lost souls under the OT from hades.
I actually prefer to opt for my alternative interpretation of the text which I believe is the most exegetically plausible i.e. that Christ as a type of Enoch proclaimed the impending judgement and declared his triumph to the fallen angels who undermined his authority by fleeing the beauty of God for the perishable beauty of the earth, thereby falling as far as heaven is from earth (to paraphrase the words of St Clement of Alexandria).
As I showed elsewhere throughout my post, to claim that every single pre-New-Testament soul (regardless of their moral or religious state i.e. regardless of how they responded to the law whether that be written or natural) received some sort of a second chance, is contrary to the scriptures; if you can explain and reconcile your interpretation with the verses I brought forth I’ll be willing to revise my position, but until then I will stick with what is evidently (to me anyway) sound exegesis.
Universal salvation is a possible outcome if all would respond positively to Jesus Christ.
I agree; but the apostles and prophets of God under the inspiration of His Grace speak in a manner that presupposes a foreknown fact that not all will respond positively.
Let us suffice in saying this and keep our faith in Christ obeying His commandments, and leave matters beyond us, to God.
I have no problem in concluding on that note either.
What is the effect of a personal response to the Grace of Christ if not the process of being lead to the sufficient religious and moral state in order to inherit the Kingdom of God? The fact of the matter is, not all respond to this grace, and this is the very unforgivable sin that Christ identifies as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Indeed. However, there are also those who respond positively to His grace. Apparently, this is was happened when Christ plundered hades (as I like to put it).
The Sacrafice of Christ was performed for all generations, which is a point im sure you obviously agree with. However as you have stated, our salvation is dependent on our personal response to Christ’s testimony which is manifest in many forms, and it is upon a positive response to such grace that the work of the Cross becomes effective. Those in hades who lived in corruption and idolatory due to a consistently willful resistance and hardness of the heart, dying without repentence, were certainly NOT redeemed by Christ from hades, and 1 Peter 3:18-20 certainly says nothing of the sort!
I would disagree with that, for I believe that the essence of Christ's descent into hell is precisely to present the possibility of repentance and the benefist of His Cross to those who had not yet had that chance. The Incarnation (including the Cross) penetrate even the depths of hades. This does not mean, however, that those dying in their sins and rejection of Christ now will or must be saved by these means too. The Church prays (or most local bodies of the Church still do, it was abandoned recently by the Holy Synod of the COC, but all other Churches still do) for those in hades even now. But it cannot garantee their salvation. The plundering of hades by Jesus is not the same thing as universalism (sometimes referred to as Origenism). We need to understand this last point well.
As I showed elsewhere throughout my post, to claim that every single pre-New-Testament soul (regardless of their moral or religious state i.e. regardless of how they responded to the law whether that be written or natural) received some sort of a second chance, is contrary to the scriptures; if you can explain and reconcile your interpretation with the verses I brought forth I’ll be willing to revise my position, but until then I will stick with what is evidently (to me anyway) sound exegesis.
I will look at these texts in context and tell you how that went ;)
But perhaps it is not so much a "second chance"? It was after all before the Incarnation,.. the Grace of the Incarnation was not (yet) available, and it is now. This is being presented to them for the first time I would argue. But again, this not the same as universal salvation.
I agree; but the apostles and prophets of God under the inspiration of His Grace speak in a manner that presupposes a foreknown fact that not all will respond positively.
I think that another reading of the prophets would reveal that the future is not "carved in stone" and open in both (heaven and hell) directions. We cannot affirm heaven and deny hell nor affirm hell and deny heaven. They are both very real possibilities, and depending upon how we determine our lives towards or away from Christ. In whatever way they are read, it is clear that sin leads to separation from God, and that this is a hellish torture for those created in His Image. All we can say is that heaven and hell are given to us, God has given it to us to end up in either place, and unless we repent of our sins and have faith in Christ we will end up in hell. By repentance the Gates of Heaven will open, cos Christ is the Way, Truth and the Life.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] God has declared that He cannot lie and that He cannot deny Himself. What He has testified to is absolute truth; He does not go back on His Word and we are in no position to make exceptions when such exceptions are motivated by emotion rather than reason.
Precisely my point. [quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] There is nothing in these verses that necessitates the interpretation that all who died before the crucifixion of Christ were saved, regardless of their deeds or the nature of their faith;
Unless, of course, the Fathers expressly interpreted them to mean this, which they did.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] St Augustine himself rejected an interpretation of redemptive teaching by Christ per se.
As great and holy of a servant as Blessed Augustine was, an author of many heresies I might add.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] In any event, we find that the "spirits" being referred to here are those of a specific period i.e. when the “long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah” (verse 20). The preceding verse (verse 19) does not even mention or hint at salvation or deliverance, rather it merely states that He went to these antediluvians and preached to them in the ministry of Noah, announcing His finished work on the Cross. Thus if salvation is involved in any event, it can be interpreted in the sense that Christ made an offer of salvation to those who had never before heard of Him and His Gospel, before their final judgment.
This interpretation does not necessarily preclude that Christ also delivered the post-deluvian un-righteous. Just as when Christ told the thief on the Cross, "I tell you the truth, today you shall be with me in Paradise", He was not necessarily implying that the other thief would not be with Him in Paradise.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] This is the view adopted by St Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata. St Clement asserts (6:6) that those who were deemed righteous according to The Law only required faith to complete their salvation, whereas those who were righteous according to natural law or their philosophies required both faith and repentance of their idolatrous ways.
St. Clement becomes very confusing in this work. He often jumps from references to the "Greek heathen" living in this world to references to those in Hades. As a matter of fact, I believe his tone in this work is quite in-line with those of the "stronger" version.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] The view that those righteous were offered salvation is also the view held by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies Bk. 4 ch.27 when he states: "For this reason it was, that the Lord made His descent into the lower regions beneath the earth, proclaiming and preaching His advent there, and pronouncing the remission of sins that was received by those who believe in Him. Now it was that all those believed in Him and who had hope towards Him; those who proclaimed and prophesied of His advent, and who submitted to His dispensations; those righteous men, the patriarchs and the prophets…"
Again....I don't see what necessitates interpreting this verse so that those who did not "believe in Him" or "had hope towards Him", "proclaimed and prophesied of His advent", "submitted to His dispensations", or who were not "righteous men, patriarchs, or prophets" were necessarily not delivered from Hades. I'd also like to add that Irenaeus endorsed ciliasm, which was anathematized at Constantinople 381.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] Alternatively, Christ’s preaching ministry may be interpreted in the light of Colossians 2:14-15, such that it had its purpose in proclaiming His victory to the enemies; the demon spirits imprisoned in the abyss, such that he proclaimed His triumph which was paradoxically achieved through His death. In the light of 2 Peter 2:4, 9 the spirits being referred to may be identified as fallen angels i.e. demons. In the context of Noah’s period, this is clearly a reference to the divine sons of God of Genesis 6:2, who through their carnally motivated intermarriage with the daughters of Cain, displeased the Lord who then set their life to a limit of 120 years, giving them a chance to repent which they failed to take heed to. This latter interpretation is supported by extra-biblical tradition as found in the book of 1 Enoch, where the righteous Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) goes at the command of God, to the place where these very fallen angels are imprisoned and he proclaims to them their very impending judgment and the punishment due for their sins. The parallel to Peter’s epistle is too remarkable to just be quickly dismissed. Being aware of this extra-biblical tradition, it is plausible that Peter depicted Enoch in a typological sense i.e. like a "type" of Christ and that in 1 Peter 3:19 he portrays the Lord Christ as a kind of "second Enoch" who descends to the spirit world to proclaim the evil spiritsr final downfall (compare Col. 2:15).
You've obviously done your exegetical homework. But once more I'd like to add that the above does not necessarily imply that Christ did not also release every single prisoner therein without exception. Just as I'm sure you don't think the above caption necessarily implies that Christ did not also release ante-deluvian prisoners.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] It is contrary to the scriptures to claim that those who died in sin, and who were neither righteous by the written law of God nor the natural law convicting their very conscious, would have a second chance.
Hebrews 6:4-6: "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
Considering the verse just quoted, you would also be forced to believe that anyone who looked lustfully after a woman, smoked a doobie, or kicked his/her dog after baptism would automatically go to hell. But "with God all things possible."
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] The scriptures explicitly and decisively assert that judgment directly proceeds death such that it is only during one’s lifetime that they are able to repent (Hebrews 3:15-4;11, 9:27).
I just read all those verses, and no where does it imply that those in hades, after death, cannot repent.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] In the parable of Luke 16:19-31, Christ clearly teaches that there is no way for the rich man to escape his very sufferings because between the wicked and the righteous there exists a great chasm that is fixed such that those who wish to cross over to find themselves able to do so (Verse 26). Christ then goes on to warn the rich man that his living brothers only had the opportunity of repentance while they were alive (verses 29-31).
Dude....it's a parable. To turn a parable into a source of metaphysical knowledge makes about as much sense as pretending that the parable of the seed-sower can be used as a lesson in botany. And even granting the cogency of using this moral lesson as a textbook of the after-life, the indication that the rich man cannot cross the chasm means just that: that he, of and by himself, cannot cross the chasm....but the Victorious and Merciful Lord Jesus Christ can.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] The urgency with which the issue of salvation was pressed on the sinners as seen for example in 2 Cor. 6:1-2 can only really be understood as one that is grounded in the conviction that once death takes place, our judgment is sealed. This point is made most explicitly by St Paul in 1 Thessolonians 4:13: “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.”
"If you do not repent of your Sodomy, you will be tormented by devils and fire and chains for hundreds of years!"----Is that not urgent?
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] 2) Regarding the patristic quotes which employ the word “all”:
Taking such statemnents to their literal extremes may also prove the heresy of universal salvation from the Biblical text itself: For example, St Paul states in 1 Corinthians:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive... (1Cor 15:22).
...we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.... God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them (2Cor 5:14, 19).
Well...you said it not me. I'll keep quiet for now.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] However, the fact of the matter is, the word "all" in its Greek or even its Hebrew linguistic context, does not necessarily mean "each and every single person"; but rather may indeed be simply referring to an overwhelming or substantial majority.
Oh....you mean like: "God desires all men to be saved"?.....such reasoning would ultimately lead to Calvinism. Au contraire, words like "eternal", "never", "always", "unquenchable", "dieth not" were almost never used literally in Greek or Oriental usage.
Actually: according to Thomas Allin, the proper way to translate that verse would be, "Good were it for Him( i.e. Jesus), if that man had not been born."
The problem with Mr Allin is that he is playing with semantics disconnected from their socio-historical context. As Professor Matthew Keener points out, the familiar expression of “better never to have been born” was common in secnd temple Jewish literature, employed as a pronouncement of frightful judgment (1 Enoch 38:2; 4 Ezra 7:69; 2 Bar. 10:6; 2 Enoch 41:2; Greek. Ezra 1:6, 21). Rendering the verse in a manner that finds precedent in second temple Jewish intertestamental literature, we find that the subject of the verse (i.e. the one whom it would have been good for, had he not have been born) is Judas; for he abused his free will, and instead of repenting, decided to take his own life, and thereby brought judgment upon himself.
This whole subject of Judas was quite tangential and was hardly of any import. And anyway, like I said before, perhaps Judas died after Christ. Or perhaps his torments, even if lasting only a few hours, far outweighed those of others for centuries.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] According to all that I have thus far stated in this post, there is no reason for us to conclude that Judas has a second chance after his death to gain salvation.
Unless, of course, the Fathers say otherwise, whether explicitly or implicitly.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476] 4) Re: blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
It was stated:
Actually, many of the Fathers believed that the "unforgiveable" sin could, in fact, be forgiven.
Nonsense. The unforgivable is by definition, in the simplest terms a continuous resistance of the Holy Spirit, and hence an unrepentant life. The Church fathers declared that repentance negates blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, such that it is not a case of the unforgivable sin being forgiven via repentance, but rather a case of repentance being evidence of the fact that the unforgivable sin is yet to be committed in the first place.
I'm already exhausted and bored. Please don't make me quote two dozen Fathers again.
G.J.I., You are absolutely right, not everyone was raised with the Lord, as someone mentioned. Because this implies that the Babylonians, the Canaanites, theAmorites,.... were also saved
This is not an Orthodox teaching or early Father’s saying.
Only those who had died on the hope of resurrection, Christ raised them from Hades and enter with them triumphantly to the Paradise..
as for USMN's references and inconcise exegesis, iqbal refuted all aspects of this heresy, includin the use of the word "all" in the church father quotes, he also refuted the allegations made by him concerning, the verse regarding Judas, made by mr Allin, the unforgivable sin, the notion of limiting God's grace and the sentiment that all pre-new testement souls had a second chance.
now from the bible it is evident through Christ's teaching that something like this would be impossible, ur basically insinuating the idea of bias or favourtism, God showing grace unequally, God created the people who exsited before Christ did he not? therefore he choose who to make before the time of christ in order for them to be saved?? so according to this ideology that means he, in the end gave them salvation, but now for us we dont have a second chance. as i stated before if this is true wats to stop us from believin if we go to hell, after 1000s of years God wont raise us up aswell?
and if clear from the gospels, the chronology of the judas death and Christ's death, that Judas died 1st, therefore he is now in heaven and therefore this contridicts the verse which i brought up earlier and iqbal reinforced that "it would be better for that man if he was never born" (the one who betrays the son of man).
may God give us the grace and wisdom to differenciate between the truth and such fallacies.
Do any believers in the Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are convinced that all people before Jesus were raised from Hades?
As our friend Iqbal once said, “ God forgive in consistency with His attributes, for God cannot deny Himself, and in consistency with His words, for God cannot lie. “
God is infinitely merciful but at the same time He is infinitely the Righteous Judge.
[quote author=Safaa link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30096 date=1120262287] Do any believers in the Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are convinced that all people before Jesus were raised from Hades?
Well, all modern Jews (whether Orthodox, Reform, or whatever) believe in universal salvation....that should mean something. Also, look at the Fathers I quoted on page 1. There are a couple other Fathers who can be quoted in the opposite vein, but the credibility of such Fathers are limited by their lack of a grasp of Greek language (i.e. they were Latin-speakers) and/or their previous involvement in Manichaeism, whose beliefs they never quite renounced fully.
[quote author=Safaa link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30096 date=1120262287] As our friend Iqbal once said, “ God forgive in consistency with His attributes, for God cannot deny Himself, and in consistency with His words, for God cannot lie. “
That is precisely the point I'm trying to make.
[quote author=Safaa link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30096 date=1120262287] God is infinitely merciful but at the same time He is infinitely the Righteous Judge.
If you took this line of thought to its obvious conclusion, you would see that God's Mercy is His judgment. The only alternative to this is either Calvinism or Marcionism, both abominable, nauseating heresies.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30028 date=1120231109] Despite this tendency amongst many great theologians of the Church, the doctrine was anathemized by the Coptic Church at a synod that was under the direction of Pope Demetrius the Vinedresser.
.....and I'm sincerely saddened how Islam and Missionary-Evangelicalism has effected the Church. If a Coptic Synod declared that 2 + 2 = 5, would you thereby believe it? As I've said before, Popes/Bishops/Synods are supposed to follow Tradition...not create it.
if wat u say is true than wats the point of judgement day? there are to many inconsistencies, in you argument, too many loose ends which can not be explained. God through out the old and the new testement has made it very clear to us that by choosing the wrong path we suffer the consequences, there are no exceptions. my friend if the matter is not clear then its safe to go along with the basic ideals of our church which go against these theories.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30092 date=1120261376] as for USMN's references and inconcise exegesis
There are different styles of exegesis. One of these styles includes the use of reason and logic. Semantic/lexicographic/linguistic styles don't have any monopoly on exegesis.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30092 date=1120261376] now from the bible it is evident through Christ's teaching that something like this would be impossible, ur basically insinuating the idea of bias or favourtism, God showing grace unequally, God created the people who exsited before Christ did he not? therefore he choose who to make before the time of christ in order for them to be saved?? so according to this ideology that means he, in the end gave them salvation, but now for us we dont have a second chance. as i stated before if this is true wats to stop us from believin if we go to hell, after 1000s of years God wont raise us up aswell?
Well....as I said before, you said it, not me. And anyways....in our era, anybody can be filled with the Holy Spirit, Jew or Gentile. Before Pentecost, only a select few (i.e. Prophets, Kings, Priests) were chosen to be vessels of the Holy Spirit. How is that fair for pre-New Testament people? So tit for tat.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30092 date=1120261376] and if clear from the gospels, the chronology of the judas death and Christ's death, that Judas died 1st, therefore he is now in heaven and therefore this contridicts the verse which i brought up earlier and iqbal reinforced that "it would be better for that man if he was never born" (the one who betrays the son of man).
I still don't understand what makes Judas worse than say: the men of Sodom who wouldn't to commit buggery with the angels who visited Lot. So he betrayed Jesus, yes. But there are many different kinds of sinners. After all, Judas 1) experienced remorse, 2) refused the wages (i.e. 30 silver pieces) of iniquity, 3) confessed his guilt (i.e. to the Priests), and 4) realized that death was indeed the consequence of sin (i.e. he killed himself). And sure: it would be better for him to never have been born: perhaps because of the remorse he felt?
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30092 date=1120261376] may God give us the grace and wisdom to differenciate between the truth and such fallacies.
....and I'm sincerely saddened how Islam and Missionary-Evangelicalism has effected the Church. If a Coptic Synod declared that 2 + 2 = 5, would you thereby believe it? As I've said before, Popes/Bishops/Synods are supposed to follow Tradition...not create it.
Hello U_stole_my_name,
May I ask you politely what is your denomination? If you do not want to answer, it is O.K., I respect your option.
But if you are a Copt, then you are going against the Holy synod and this is a dangerous road you are embarking on it. If you accept an advice from a friend, then perhaps you need to sit with your F.O.C. to give you the absolution before you take from the Holy Sacraments
“Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” 1 Samuel 15":22:23
According to my abouna, (which I have spoken to only 40 minutes ago) those who were awaiting a messiah were saved. Those who were not and did not deserve to go to heaven went to hell.
I still don't understand what makes Judas worse than say: the men of Sodom who wouldn't to commit buggery with the angels who visited Lot. So he betrayed Jesus, yes. But there are many different kinds of sinners. After all, Judas 1) experienced remorse, 2) refused the wages (i.e. 30 silver pieces) of iniquity, 3) confessed his guilt (i.e. to the Priests), and 4) realized that death was indeed the consequence of sin (i.e. he killed himself). And sure: it would be better for him to never have been born: perhaps because of the remorse he felt?
wat makes judas worse is that he was condemned by Christ himself. in that verse we mentioned, as we know wen he left them as jesus told him do wat u must, the bible said "satan entered into him" remorse he felt? unlikely, such a harsh statement like never to hav been born over remorse? and if judas is in heaven now then why did they need to replace him in act with matthais? does that mean cos he was one of the discoples that he will be with them? certainly not, this man is in hades.
I would disagree with that, for I believe that the essence of Christ's descent into hell is precisely to present the possibility of repentance and the benefist of His Cross to those who had not yet had that chance….
This does not mean, however, that those dying in their sins and rejection of Christ now will or must be saved by these means too.
This presents a rational problem to the situation; surely it is inconceivable that those in Hades being confronted by the Risen Lord Himself and hearing the message of His salvation, would reject this message and not repent. What you are saying presents a serious disadvantage for us living in the post-crucifixion period who are not (at least not most of us) confronted with such a testimony and chance to repent. Hypothetically speaking, according to your theory, the unrepentant murderer of today who rejected the Gospel and died in sin, will not be saved (if we are to take seriously the principle of the unforgivable sin), however the unrepentant murderer of the OT period who rejected the Law and died in sin, was given the most confronting and blatant testimony and witness from the Risen Lord Himself, a chance to repent which will obviously be taken.
You may think I am over-emphasizing or maybe even over-simplifying the use of reason, however since a few theories have thus far been presented, and we are dealing with a non-dogmatic issue, I think it is only reasonable to go with the one that presents us with the least amount of theological or logical dilemmas.
Those of the Old Testament may not have been under the period of grace and truth, but they were under the period of the Law, and according to that Law are they judged. Faith and works go hand in hand, hence the reasoning behind St Clement that only those righteous are offered salvation, in order that they may complete their righteousness with faith in the Incarnation and the Cross such that their righteousness which in and of itself does not suffice in earning salvation, may be justified before God.
Do any believers in the Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are convinced that all people before Jesus were raised from Hades?
As our friend Iqbal once said, “ God forgive in consistency with His attributes, for God cannot deny Himself, and in consistency with His words, for God cannot lie. “
God is infinitely merciful but at the same time He is infinitely the Righteous Judge.
Safaa, I put the burden of proof on your table. Please respond with your proofs for your broad and generalized statements about the Church and the Bible and Tradition you made earlier.
As great and holy of a servant as Blessed Augustine was, an author of many heresies I might add.
And as I have pointed out, you pasted many quotes coming from those who adopted the heresy anathemized by a local Alexandrine council under the authority of Pope Demetrius the vinedresser. Furthermore, whatever heresies Augustine may or may not have held to, are not even directly relevant to this issue, whereas the heresy of universal salvation does have a direct bearing on the issue being discussed.
This interpretation does not necessarily preclude that Christ also delivered the post-deluvian un-righteous.
Actually it does, since the context specifically refers to the period of Noah.
St. Clement becomes very confusing in this work
This is not an argument.
Again....I don't see what necessitates interpreting this verse so
Since we have presented conflicting patristic interpretations, what “necessitates interpreting this verse so” is not an issue, since none of your quotations present us with the corollary interpretation of anything either. The fact of the matter remains, St Clement and Iranaeus provide interpretations that are more consistent with sound Biblical exegesis.
You've obviously done your exegetical homework. But once more I'd like to add that the above does not necessarily imply that Christ did not also release every single prisoner therein without exception.
Well since the alternate interpretation that you are responding to (did you even read it?) has to do with Christ’s proclaiming the impending judgment to fallen angels, then the release of prisoners per se has absolutely nothing to do with it in any event. So you would be reading something into the text which doesn’t even exist i.e. you would be eisegeting.
I just read all those verses, and no where does it imply that those in hades, after death, cannot repent.
The verses make it clear that judgment directly proceeds death. There is no second chance, there is no where in the Biblical text that implies that anyone is given a second chance, and there is no universal and unanimous patristic consensus regarding anyone being given a second chance. The sense of urgency in the Apostles call to repentance and faith is meaningless and a joke, if everyone after they die is able to confront the Risen Lord Himself to be given such an easy and blatant opportunity to gain His salvation regardless of their blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Dude....it's a parable.
And I am extracting the principles of the parable. Or do you think Christ just told parables for no other purpose except to entertain an audience? If you would like to interpret it contrary to the manner I have, then please give us your exegesis.
Au contraire, words like "eternal", "never", "always", "unquenchable", "dieth not" were almost never used literally in Greek or Oriental usage.
We don’t deal with semantics in a vacuum; we interpret according to other contextual factors. The scriptures make it clear that there are certain elements necessary for our salvation and that those who willfully and consistently resist these elements and live an unrepentant life, will NOT inherit salvation; this is the context in which we conclude that certainly not "all" will be saved, since the Bible does not contradict itself on a doctrinal or moral level.
I'm already exhausted and bored. Please don't make me quote two dozen Fathers again.
Half your quotes came from those who supported the heresy of universal salvation; thus they don’t have much credibility. I didn’t paste nearly as many quotes as yourself, but at least I proved the consistency of my patristic quotes with the Biblical scriptures.
If a Coptic Synod declared that 2 + 2 = 5, would you thereby believe it?
Don't be ridiculous.
Points I have proven:
1) Universal salvation is not taught in the scriptures 2) Universal salvation contradicts the scriptural testimony. 3) Universal salvation was condemned as heresy by an authoritative synod in the mid-third century I believe.
I think this constitutes enough evidence for me to disregaed this doctrine. You may want to be a liberal rebel and that is your choice, but as far as Im concerned, the school of Alexandria is under the supervision and authority of the Church of Alexandria. The reliability of what certain theologians have to say, ultimately depends on what the Church says. The Church was entrusted with the authority, and so I submit to this authority, and im sorry but this authority has not declared anything blatantly ridiculous such as "2 + 2 = 5" but has rather anathemized this heresy according to a Biblical truth.
1) Universal salvation is not taught in the scriptures
Yet you have given Scriptures that could well indicate the opposite. Surely all may indicate a substantial majority. But it may also indicate simply what the word itself means: "all". Far as I can tell it is open both ways.
2) Universal salvation contradicts the scriptural testimony.
It contradicts a certain way of reading Scripture. There have been others, great theologians and saints (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Bishop Kallistos Ware) who read Scripture differently. In this reading of Scripture Universal Salvation is possible, if dependent upon free-will. Free-will is the only way to be saved, as well as the only way to be lost.
3) Universal salvation was condemned as heresy by an authoritative synod in the mid-third century I believe.
The Catechetical School of Alexandria was founded independently from the Bishop of Alexandria. It was not until St. Demetrius the Vinedresser that attempts were made to integrate the School into the Bishops direct authority. Mind you, the School was not opposed to the Bishop, but it was simply a lay organisation at first.
When St. Demetrius came along he rigorously combatted the various kinds of magic and gnosticism rampant in Alexandrian Christian circles. Part of his program to maintain the purity of Orthodoxy was to get the School under his direct controle too. The School had many students, not all of whom were Christians. From the Bishops pov this was perfectly correct, but from Origen's pov it was a usurping of the School by the Bishop. This is the background of all later disputes that the two great men were going to have. It finally resulted in the Alexandrian Church being cleansed from gnostics and magic-users, but it also resulted in Origen leaving to Rome, and then Palestine, to escape excesses of St. Demetrius' good intentions.
The condemnations of St. Demetrius are nototiously hard to find out, but they seem to have focussed on Origen claiming that the devil must be saved, his illegitemate ordination to the priesthood, and his being unqualified for the priesthood due to self-castration. None of this carries any "dogmatic weight" in the discussion on Universal Salvation.
Except for, perhaps, the first possible accusation. The necessary salvation of the devil. In response to this accusation Origen wrote a letter saying that he had taught no such doctrine and that only a mad-man would. He had however taught that the devil is not lost by nature but by his own free-will. This he did in a refutation of what was (probably) a Valentinian Gnostic.
His ordination was done to him by a befriended Bishop. It was against his will and own desires (as was frequent in thoise days). But still, this charge is, at least technically, correct. Though again it has a background to it. St. Demetrius had made reforms in the Church. One of which was that non-clergy were no longer allowed to preach a sermon or exegete the Scriptures in Church-Liturgy. Obviously he intended to get control over the contents of sermons and exegesis in order to prevent false teaching. Which in itself is good, but it also limits theological creativity. For example, if a less gifted theologian would have occupied the Throne of Alexandria at the time of Nestorius, we would have been in danger of being overrun with Nestorianism. I think the lesson to be learned from St. Demetrius and Origen is that neither clericalism (some excessive reforms along the lines of St. Demetrius) nor charismatism (excessive emphasis on theological freedom traces of which we clearly find in Origen) is healthy for the Church. We need a balance in these things. Such as we have seen under St. Athanasius and St. Cyril for example.
The self-castration of Origen is infamous, and it rests on two main sources; 1) St. Demetrius' accusation and 2) the report of Eusebius of Ceasarea. It seems, to me, likely that he did indeed castrate himself, maybe by chemical means, even though bodily mutilations among early Christian ascetism was probably frequent and needed to be corrected through the centuries by the saints and doctors of the Church. Again, this accusation is technically correct.
We end up having two non-dogmatic condemnations of St. Demetrius against Origen, and one mistaken condemnation of a dogmatic nature. The latter impatcs universal salvation only in so far as it prohibits to affirm the devil must be saved. Grace is not forced, it is not irresistable (as tSt. Augustine taught). But it must also be stated that the council presided over by St. Demetrius does not, in itself, carry dogmatic infallibility. Its correctnes depends upon being in line with the Scriptures and Tradition. Councils of the Church are not collective Roman Pontiff's. They are canonical gatherings where the Church seeks the voice of the Holy Spirit. But the canons are neither infallible nor universally binding (though the latter does not apply to Ecumenical Councils).
Once again, I'de like to emphasize that the salvation of the unrighteous from Hades by Christ at His descending into hell, is not identical to Universal Salvation. They are two different things! Both of our interpretations of the descent into hell are separate from Universal Salvation. The descent into hell is a Liturgical, Traditional, and Scriptural fact, Universal Salvation is not. If anything, Universal Salvation is a dogmatic opinion avoided (publicly) by most of the fathers who believed in it, and it is denied by many who rejected it. The subject of Universal Salvation usually leads to fierce debates of great emotion and stirs up more passions than a life-time of ascetism can conquer. It is best to avoid that subject in public, and if absolutely necesary to the salvation of someone's soul it can be dealt with privately. Let us be careful not to fight over Mysteries that God has in His control and has not given to us to speak the last word about.
Iow let us be careful not to sit on the Throne in Heaven that is too big for us, and will inflate out ego's to the point of damaging our souls. Let us discuss the descent into hades, but avoid such topics as Universal Salvation. Let us take care not to confuse, for that is certain to happen to a lot of those reading these pages but who do not post on this site. We have no idea how this impacts their spiritual lives, let us therefore not openly argue and make sweeping statements of heresy or orthodoxy about things that the Fathers have judged to bar from public debate.
I will say no more on Universal Salvation, for I have allready said more than I am comfortable with, but felt even less comfortable with not saying it. Any further comments or ideas that are shared in this regard will henceforth be ignored (at least by me) unless sent by PM. I will limit myself to the purpose of this topic. May God forgive me and have mercy on us.
This presents a rational problem to the situation; surely it is inconceivable that those in Hades being confronted by the Risen Lord Himself and hearing the message of His salvation, would reject this message and not repent. What you are saying presents a serious disadvantage for us living in the post-crucifixion period who are not (at least not most of us) confronted with such a testimony and chance to repent. Hypothetically speaking, according to your theory, the unrepentant murderer of today who rejected the Gospel and died in sin, will not be saved (if we are to take seriously the principle of the unforgivable sin), however the unrepentant murderer of the OT period who rejected the Law and died in sin, was given the most confronting and blatant testimony and witness from the Risen Lord Himself, a chance to repent which will obviously be taken.
I see your point very well.
However, I would still say that it is not so much a "second chance" the new situation after the Incarnation warrants a first chance to everybody to respond to it. This is due to the uniqueness of the Incarnation. It cannot be so that only sinners after the Incarnation benefit from it. The Gospel must have been preached to the dead too. Such, I think, is clearly the expectation of most of the early fathers (as quoted by u_stole_my_name). Now, this has not been dogmatically been defined, I know that. But at least we should be able to acknowledge that both interpretations are possible and find biblical and patristic support. I know what my personal belief is, but I refuse to dogmatize it.
IC XC
Grigorii
PS I'll respond to your biblical citations the next time I get online.
Comments
I SEE CHAINS AS METAPHORICAL, BROKE THE CHAINS, THE FETTERSAS IN THE BONDS WHICH BOUND THEM TO HADES.
very convenient.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg29991 date=1120197648]
AND YES OUR CHURCH DOES BELIEVE IT WAS REFERING TO JUDAS, I HEARD A SERMON FROM POPE SHENUDA AND HE REFERED TO IT.
The Coptic Orthodox Church is not like the Catholic Church. The Coptic Church does not hold to Papal Infallibility. Popes/Bishops/Synods are supposed to follow Tradition, not create it.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg29991 date=1120197648]
SEE ANGLICAN, THERES THE PROBLEM RIGHT THERE, THE PEOPLE WHOSE RELIGIOUS VIEWS RELFLEST REBELLION RATHER THAT THEOLOGY, THERE BELIEFS ARE BASED ON BELIEVING IN SUCH IDEALS WHICH GO AGAINST OUR CHURCH.
I STILL BELIEVE TO PROFESS THIS IS HERESY, LOOK AT THE ORTHODOX CHURCH BELIEFS NOT OTHERS.
First off, this guy lived in the 19th century....a long time before the Anglican Church reached the depths it has now. Secondly, if he makes a correct observation, then it is a correct observation regardless of what church/religion he is in.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg29991 date=1120197648]
AGAIN DISAGREE
WHOSE TO DEFINE CORRECT.
SATANIST-DONT THINK SO BUDDY
AS U SAID "according to Thomas Allin"
NOT ACCORDING TO OUR CHURCH
AND ACCORDING TO WHO HE IS RITE?
TO U?
DOESNT MAKE IT RITE.
IF A SATANIST PROCLAIM WAT THIS MAN SAID IS RITE,
STILL DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT.
So if a Satanist says that 2 + 2 + 4, then he's wrong?
he made an observation, his opinion on how it SHOULD be translated, who said he was rite????
who said yes this is a correct observation??
who?
u?
"Coptic Church does not hold to Papal Infallibility. Popes/Bishops/Synods are supposed to follow Tradition, not create it."
oh so now ur saying that our pope isnt capable?
and that he creates our traditions?
who are we as coptics more likely to believe, our pontif, who is a eminent theologian, or a anglican guy u made a subjective observation in the 19th century?
im not sayin that we hold to papal infallibilty, im saying that he as theologian not a pope is correct and according to the ORTHODOX faith, wat he says abibes by it.
bout ur remark on the metaphorical nature of the chains, why cant it be a metaphor?
wen christ says if ur hand causes u to sin, cut it off, do we take that literally?
when he says dont take the speck out of ur brother's eye beofre taking the log out of ur own eye, do we take that literally?
how convenient.
i think u meant 2+2=4
this is an objective issue, we are discussing a subjective issue.
are u even coptic?
because for a coptic to rely on views other than our own, seems surreal.
for a coptic to say that satanist can hold true biblical views sounds rather unorthodox.
For example in Comparative Theology he writes:"We baptise infants on the belief of their parents, but our Protestant brethren do not believe in Paedobaptism since they condition the belief of the baptised prior to baptising him." Which is true of the sects that arose after the Reformation in Europe (and then spread to the US) but not of the majority of the Churches of the Reformation. I live in a Calvinist country, a Reformed country so to speak, paedobaptism is unquestionably practiced by all of them! The mistake here is to say that all Protestants practice adult baptism in opposition to paedopbaptism. Our Pope is simply not infallible, and proof of this is simply that.
I think it is a great disgrace to confuse our Pope with the Roman one. Our Pope is based in Biblical and traditional teachings. Not the papal sophistries of the later Roman Catholic traditions (which are deviations from Scripture and Tradition). Love of our Pope must not lead us into the deviations and misconceptions of Roman Catholic papalism. The observation of Thomas Allin that the early fathers taught that Jesus' ministry saved all from hades is not subjective, it is an objective fact of history. I have not seen HH. Pope Shenouda deny this, and I don't expect him to deny this since he is precisely an Orthodox Patriarch and the idea that only the righteous were saved from hades is a later Roman Catholic innovation and is just as un-Orthodox as is the doctrine of purgatory.
If anything, the observation of Thomas Allin brings him closer to Orthodoxy, and in fact in the 1930-ies the Anglicans were very very close to re-uniting with the Eastern Orthodox (and thereby become Orthodox) but they sadly rejected re-union, and today we see where it has brought them. But todays Anglicanism is nothing like the "orthodox" Anglicanism of say, a 100 yrs ago. It is certainly possible that it is a metaphor. But a metaphor of what? Of breaking free from somethikng which previously held one captive,.. So either way the breaking of the chains speaks of the redemption of all who were in hades and as such testifies to the invincible and glorious power of Christ unto salvation. Glory be to His Name!
The "plundering of hell" by Christ as He descended into hades, testifies to the fact God will always be the victor over evil. That evil can never have the last and final say in a matter. Unless we accept the Manichean dualism that believes in "eternal evil" that is an evil co-eternal with God (making God and devil equals which is polytheism and a heresy). I have even encountered a situation where a prof. of New Testament studies could explain many doctrines correctly, but who was nevertheless an atheist. He taught NT theology at a University,... As an atheists. Even in this country we have a theologian and former minister who writes about theology a lot and he does so correctly many times (but of course he also says many things which are untrue), but he too has become an atheist. It is not all impossible that a non-Christian can understand a doctrine of Christianity correctly. It is impossible, however, that a non-Christian have "experiental, living, knowledge" of Christian doctrine.
IC XC
Grigorii
by reading the old testement u see that there where many evil doers, ur saying they were rasied to paradise?
"Christ will descend that in order that all, both on earth and in heaven and in hades, may obtain salvation from Him."
"all in hades"
so christ freed satan?
think bout it.
quote from the bible.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=0#msg29957 date=1120186963]
this is a contridiction.
ask urself how does that make sense?
how is that ethical?
how is that fair?
how is that Christian?
u think that people who were, like i said b4, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, or extortioners will be amongst the saints in paradise?
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=15#msg29960 date=1120187687]
really for people who practised homosexuallity, which "God hates"
they were given passage to heaven?
where in our belief do we profess that people got a second chance?
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=15#msg29972 date=1120194759]
ok the sections in hades part is good, but u think that the ppl bein tourmented were freed?
see i believe that the were in the righteous section were freed.
G.J.I., can I ask you what your problem is with God giving people His grace? If God decides to save a homosexual (who He does not hate) who are we to say this is unfair? I'm sorry if you feel that it is unjust and unfair that people who are bigger sinners than you are getting into heaven, but let's take a look at James 2:8-13:
" If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder."If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! " NIV
Mercy triumphs over judgment! Indeed! Pray that God will show his mercy, according to his mercy and not according to our sins!
And I'm not sure where the argument about Judas is going here. Luke 22:22 reads:
"For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"
Whether or not it would have been good for him to be born means little to the argument over whether or not he was delivered out of Hades by Christ.
I wonder if anyone has read the article I posted the link to earlier. Because it addresses this issue exactly. The first few paragraphs of the article says:
"The Byzantine and old Russian icons of the Resurrection of Christ never depict the resurrection itself, i.e., Christ coming out of the grave. They rather depict ‘the descent of Christ into Hades’, or to be more precise, the rising of Christ out of hell. Christ, sometimes with a cross in his hand, is represented as raising Adam, Eve and other personages of the biblical history from hell. Under the Saviour’s feet is the black abyss of the nether world; against its background are castles, locks and debris of the gates which once barred the way of the dead to resurrection. Though other motifs have also been used in creating the image of the Resurrection of Christ in the last several centuries[1: In particular, the image of the risen Christ coming out of the grave and holding a victory banner, borrowed from the Western tradition.], the above-described iconographic type is considered to be canonical, as it reflects the traditional teaching on the descent of Christ to hell, His victory over death, His raising of the dead and delivering them from hell where they were imprisoned before His Resurrection. It is to this teaching as an integral part of the dogmatic and liturgical tradition of the Christian Church that this paper is devoted.
The descent of Christ into Hades is one of the most mysterious, enigmatic and inexplicable events in New Testament history. In today’s Christian world, this event is understood differently. Liberal Western theology rejects altogether any possibility for speaking of the descent of Christ into Hades literally, arguing that the scriptural texts on this theme should be understood metaphorically. The traditional Catholic doctrine insists that after His death on the cross Christ descended to hell only to deliver the Old Testament righteous from it. A similar understanding is quite widespread among Orthodox Christians.
On the other hand, the New Testament speaks of the preaching of Christ in hell as addressed to the unrepentant sinners: ‘For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirit in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited’[2: 1 Pet. 3:18—21.]. However, many Church Fathers and liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church repeatedly underline that having descended to hell, Christ opened the way to salvation for all people, not only the Old Testament righteous. The descent of Christ into Hades is perceived as an event of cosmic significance involving all people without exception. They also speak about the victory of Christ over death, the full devastation of hell and that after the descent of Christ into Hades there was nobody left there except for the devil and demons. "
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx
If anyone actually wants to know about this issue and consider it carefully instead of trying to pass off into orthodoxy and heresy their own opinions on the way God should work, this article is a very good place to start.
In the Resurrection hymn we sing:
20. He broke Hades' gates and decended : Those who were in darkness he delivered
Adam and his heirs, He saved and chose : Christ was crucified, buried, then rose
http://www.suscopts.org/deacons/hymns/resurrection.pdf
And in the Doxology of the Resurrection and the Holy Fifty Days:
Our mouth is filled with joy,
And our tongue with rejoicing,
For our Lord, Jesus Christ,
Has risen from the dead.
By His power He abolished death,
And made life to shine on us,
He Who descended to
The lower parts of the earth.
The gate keepers of Hades
Saw Him and were afraid.
He abolished the pangs of death,
And He was not held by it.
He has broken the gates of brass,
And cut asunder the bars of iron,
And brought out his saved,
With joy and rejoicing.
He lifted them up with Him,
Into His place of rest.
He saved them for the sake of His holy name,
And revealed His power to them.
Therefore we are rich,
In all perfect gifts,
And in faith let us sing,
Saying, Alleluia.
Allow me to offer some points against the implicit proposition implied by some; that Christ's descent into hades was for the purpose of redeeming each and every pre-New-Testament person regardless of their moral or religious state.
I believe GJI has made some valid points that should not be too quickly dismissed. Ofcourse one does not want to speculate upon the operations of God's saving grace, however it perplexes me when those who claim we are attempting to restrict God's saving grace simply by reiterating the Biblical testimony on the matter, choose to derestrict His Grace in contradiction to the very Biblical testimony performed under the inspiration of His very Grace.
God has declared that He cannot lie and that He cannot deny Himself. What He has testified to is absolute truth; He does not go back on His Word and we are in no position to make exceptions when such exceptions are motivated by emotion rather than reason.
1) Re: 1 Peter 3:18-20
There is nothing in these verses that necessitates the interpretation that all who died before the crucifixion of Christ were saved, regardless of their deeds or the nature of their faith; St Augustine himself rejected an interpretation of redemptive teaching by Christ per se.
In any event, we find that the "spirits" being referred to here are those of a specific period i.e. when the “long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah” (verse 20). The preceding verse (verse 19) does not even mention or hint at salvation or deliverance, rather it merely states that He went to these antediluvians and preached to them in the ministry of Noah, announcing His finished work on the Cross. Thus if salvation is involved in any event, it can be interpreted in the sense that Christ made an offer of salvation to those who had never before heard of Him and His Gospel, before their final judgment.
This is the view adopted by St Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata. St Clement asserts (6:6) that those who were deemed righteous according to The Law only required faith to complete their salvation, whereas those who were righteous according to natural law or their philosophies required both faith and repentance of their idolatrous ways. The view that those righteous were offered salvation is also the view held by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies Bk. 4 ch.27 when he states: "For this reason it was, that the Lord made His descent into the lower regions beneath the earth, proclaiming and preaching His advent there, and pronouncing the remission of sins that was received by those who believe in Him. Now it was that all those believed in Him and who had hope towards Him; those who proclaimed and prophesied of His advent, and who submitted to His dispensations; those righteous men, the patriarchs and the prophets…"
Alternatively, Christ’s preaching ministry may be interpreted in the light of Colossians 2:14-15, such that it had its purpose in proclaiming His victory to the enemies; the demon spirits imprisoned in the abyss, such that he proclaimed His triumph which was paradoxically achieved through His death. In the light of 2 Peter 2:4, 9 the spirits being referred to may be identified as fallen angels i.e. demons. In the context of Noah’s period, this is clearly a reference to the divine sons of God of Genesis 6:2, who through their carnally motivated intermarriage with the daughters of Cain, displeased the Lord who then set their life to a limit of 120 years, giving them a chance to repent which they failed to take heed to. This latter interpretation is supported by extra-biblical tradition as found in the book of 1 Enoch, where the righteous Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) goes at the command of God, to the place where these very fallen angels are imprisoned and he proclaims to them their very impending judgment and the punishment due for their sins. The parallel to Peter’s epistle is too remarkable to just be quickly dismissed. Being aware of this extra-biblical tradition, it is plausible that Peter depicted Enoch in a typological sense i.e. like a "type" of Christ and that in 1 Peter 3:19 he portrays the Lord Christ as a kind of "second Enoch" who descends to the spirit world to proclaim the evil spiritsr final downfall (compare Col. 2:15).
It is contrary to the scriptures to claim that those who died in sin, and who were neither righteous by the written law of God nor the natural law convicting their very conscious, would have a second chance. The scriptures explicitly and decisively assert that judgment directly proceeds death such that it is only during one’s lifetime that they are able to repent (Hebrews 3:15-4;11, 9:27). In the parable of Luke 16:19-31, Christ clearly teaches that there is no way for the rich man to escape his very sufferings because between the wicked and the righteous there exists a great chasm that is fixed such that those who wish to cross over to find themselves able to do so (Verse 26). Christ then goes on to warn the rich man that his living brothers only had the opportunity of repentance while they were alive (verses 29-31).
The urgency with which the issue of salvation was pressed on the sinners as seen for example in 2 Cor. 6:1-2 can only really be understood as one that is grounded in the conviction that once death takes place, our judgment is sealed. This point is made most explicitly by St Paul in 1 Thessolonians 4:13: “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.”
2) Regarding the patristic quotes which employ the word “all”:
Taking such statemnents to their literal extremes may also prove the heresy of universal salvation from the Biblical text itself: For example, St Paul states in 1 Corinthians:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive... (1Cor 15:22).
...we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.... God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them (2Cor 5:14, 19).
However, the fact of the matter is, the word "all" in its Greek or even its Hebrew linguistic context, does not necessarily mean "each and every single person"; but rather may indeed be simply referring to an overwhelming or substantial majority.
3) Regarding Mr Allin:
It was stated: The problem with Mr Allin is that he is playing with semantics disconnected from their socio-historical context. As Professor Matthew Keener points out, the familiar expression of “better never to have been born” was common in secnd temple Jewish literature, employed as a pronouncement of frightful judgment (1 Enoch 38:2; 4 Ezra 7:69; 2 Bar. 10:6; 2 Enoch 41:2; Greek. Ezra 1:6, 21). Rendering the verse in a manner that finds precedent in second temple Jewish intertestamental literature, we find that the subject of the verse (i.e. the one whom it would have been good for, had he not have been born) is Judas; for he abused his free will, and instead of repenting, decided to take his own life, and thereby brought judgment upon himself. According to all that I have thus far stated in this post, there is no reason for us to conclude that Judas has a second chance after his death to gain salvation.
4) Re: blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
It was stated: Nonsense. The unforgivable is by definition, in the simplest terms a continuous resistance of the Holy Spirit, and hence an unrepentant life. The Church fathers declared that repentance negates blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, such that it is not a case of the unforgivable sin being forgiven via repentance, but rather a case of repentance being evidence of the fact that the unforgivable sin is yet to be committed in the first place.
Peace.
Dear all,
Allow me to offer some points against the implicit proposition implied by some; that Christ's descent into hades was for the purpose of redeeming each and every pre-New-Testament person regardless of their moral or religious state.
I believe GJI has made some valid points that should not be too quickly dismissed. Ofcourse one does not want to speculate upon the operations of God's saving grace, however it perplexes me when those who claim we are attempting to restrict God's saving grace simply by reiterating the Biblical testimony on the matter, choose to derestrict His Grace in contradiction to the very Biblical testimony performed under the inspiration of His very Grace.
God has declared that He cannot lie and that He cannot deny Himself. What He has testified to is absolute truth; He does not go back on His Word and we are in no position to make exceptions when such exceptions are motivated by emotion rather than reason.
1) Re: 1 Peter 3:18-20
There is nothing in these verses that necessitates the interpretation that all who died before the crucifixion of Christ were saved, regardless of their deeds or the nature of their faith; St Augustine himself rejected an interpretation of redemptive teaching by Christ per se.
In any event, we find that the "spirits" being referred to here are those of a specific period i.e. when the “long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah” (verse 20). The preceding verse (verse 19) does not even mention or hint at salvation or deliverance, rather it merely states that He went to these antediluvians and preached to them in the ministry of Noah, announcing His finished work on the Cross. Thus if salvation is involved in any event, it can be interpreted in the sense that Christ made an offer of salvation to those who had never before heard of Him and His Gospel, before their final judgment.
This is the view adopted by St Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata. St Clement asserts (6:6) that those who were deemed righteous according to The Law only required faith to complete their salvation, whereas those who were righteous according to natural law or their philosophies required both faith and repentance of their idolatrous ways. The view that those righteous were offered salvation is also the view held by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies Bk. 4 ch.27 when he states: "For this reason it was, that the Lord made His descent into the lower regions beneath the earth, proclaiming and preaching His advent there, and pronouncing the remission of sins that was received by those who believe in Him. Now it was that all those believed in Him and who had hope towards Him; those who proclaimed and prophesied of His advent, and who submitted to His dispensations; those righteous men, the patriarchs and the prophets…"
Alternatively, Christ’s preaching ministry may be interpreted in the light of Colossians 2:14-15, such that it had its purpose in proclaiming His victory to the enemies; the demon spirits imprisoned in the abyss, such that he proclaimed His triumph which was paradoxically achieved through His death. In the light of 2 Peter 2:4, 9 the spirits being referred to may be identified as fallen angels i.e. demons. In the context of Noah’s period, this is clearly a reference to the divine sons of God of Genesis 6:2, who through their carnally motivated intermarriage with the daughters of Cain, displeased the Lord who then set their life to a limit of 120 years, giving them a chance to repent which they failed to take heed to. This latter interpretation is supported by extra-biblical tradition as found in the book of 1 Enoch, where the righteous Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) goes at the command of God, to the place where these very fallen angels are imprisoned and he proclaims to them their very impending judgment and the punishment due for their sins. The parallel to Peter’s epistle is too remarkable to just be quickly dismissed. Being aware of this extra-biblical tradition, it is plausible that Peter depicted Enoch in a typological sense i.e. like a "type" of Christ and that in 1 Peter 3:19 he portrays the Lord Christ as a kind of "second Enoch" who descends to the spirit world to proclaim the evil spiritsr final downfall (compare Col. 2:15).
It is contrary to the scriptures to claim that those who died in sin, and who were neither righteous by the written law of God nor the natural law convicting their very conscious, would have a second chance. The scriptures explicitly and decisively assert that judgment directly proceeds death such that it is only during one’s lifetime that they are able to repent (Hebrews 3:15-4;11, 9:27). In the parable of Luke 16:19-31, Christ clearly teaches that there is no way for the rich man to escape his very sufferings because between the wicked and the righteous there exists a great chasm that is fixed such that those who wish to cross over to find themselves able to do so (Verse 26). Christ then goes on to warn the rich man that his living brothers only had the opportunity of repentance while they were alive (verses 29-31).
The urgency with which the issue of salvation was pressed on the sinners as seen for example in 2 Cor. 6:1-2 can only really be understood as one that is grounded in the conviction that once death takes place, our judgment is sealed. This point is made most explicitly by St Paul in 1 Thessolonians 4:13: “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.”
2) Regarding the patristic quotes which employ the word “all”:
Taking such statemnents to their literal extremes may also prove the heresy of universal salvation from the Biblical text itself: For example, St Paul states in 1 Corinthians:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive... (1Cor 15:22).
...we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.... God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them (2Cor 5:14, 19).
However, the fact of the matter is, the word "all" in its Greek or even its Hebrew linguistic context, does not necessarily mean "each and every single person"; but rather may indeed be simply referring to an overwhelming or substantial majority.
3) Regarding Mr Allin:
It was stated: The problem with Mr Allin is that he is playing with semantics disconnected from their socio-historical context. As Professor Matthew Keener points out, the familiar expression of “better never to have been born” was common in secnd temple Jewish literature, employed as a pronouncement of frightful judgment (1 Enoch 38:2; 4 Ezra 7:69; 2 Bar. 10:6; 2 Enoch 41:2; Greek. Ezra 1:6, 21). Rendering the verse in a manner that finds precedent in second temple Jewish intertestamental literature, we find that the subject of the verse (i.e. the one whom it would have been good for, had he not have been born) is Judas; for he abused his free will, and instead of repenting, decided to take his own life, and thereby brought judgment upon himself. According to all that I have thus far stated in this post, there is no reason for us to conclude that Judas has a second chance after his death to gain salvation.
4) Re: blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
It was stated: Nonsense. The unforgivable is by definition, in the simplest terms a continuous resistance of the Holy Spirit, and hence an unrepentant life. The Church fathers declared that repentance negates blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, such that it is not a case of the unforgivable sin being forgiven via repentance, but rather a case of repentance being evidence of the fact that the unforgivable sin is yet to be committed in the first place.
Peace.
thankyou soo much Iqbal for clearing that up, much appreciated, May God bless ur blessed service.
ive been tryin to ask u if u can plz contribute to the type of prayer post, that wood be great thankyou.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=0#msg29926 date=1120179459]
Heresy.
Then allow me to submit the following:
Eusebius of Alexandria: "Christ will descend that in order that all, both on earth and in heaven and in hades, may obtain salvation from Him."
Saint Athanasius: "While the devil thought to kill one he is deprived of all .....cast out of hades, and sitting by the gates, sees all the fettered beings led forth by the courage of the Saviour."
Basil of Seleucia: "That which happened to the visible tomb (i.e. it was emptied upon His rising), the same happened to Hades the invisible."
M.F. Victorinus: "The Saviour descends into hades by that Passion of the Cross in order that He may set free every soul."
Dydimus (translated by, and therefore endorsed by, Saint Ambrose): "In the liberation of all no one remains a captive; at the time of the Lord's Passion he alone (the devil) was injured, who lost all the captives he was keeping."
St. Gregory of Nazianzus: "...until Christ loosed by His blood all who groan under Tartarean chains."
St. Gregory of Nazianzus: ".....all of whom (the dead) Thou shalt bring forth as Thy spoils from Hades."
St. Gregory of Nazianzus: "I believe Thou wilt bring forth from Hades as many mortals as it has imprisoned."
Ambrosiaster: "Christ snatched from hades all the devil lost, together with Christ, all whom he was keeping."
St. Jerome: "Our Lord descends....and was shut up in the eternal bars, in order that He might set free all who had been shut up."
St. Jerome: "The Lord descended to the place of punishment and torment, in which was the rich man (i.e. the one from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man) in order to liberate the prisoners."
Caesarius of Arles (repeated in St. Jerome's works, and therefore endorsed by him): "The eternal night of hell is illuminated as Christ descends.....the bonds of the damned, torn asunder, fell away.......every cry of the groaing is still. The captive souls loosed from bonds go forth from hell, and the Apostle's words come true, 'In Jesus' Name every knee bends of things in heaven, and earth, and under the earth."
Epiphanius: "Christ, like a swift-winged hawk, snatched away all that He had from the beginning, from the devil and left him (i.e. the devil) deserted."
St. John Chrysostom: "While the devil imagined that he had got hold of Christ, he lost all, in fact, whom he was keeping."
St. John Chrysostom: "The fire of hell is extinguished, the sleepless worm dies.....those who were in hades are set free from the bonds of the devil."
St. Cyril of Alexandria: "(Christ spoiled Hades) and left the devil there solitary and deserted."
St. Cyril of Alexandria: "Christ, wandering down even to Hades, has emptied the dark, hidden, unseen treasuries."
St. Peter Chrysologus: "The rule of hell perishes.....and all obtain pardon."
Proclus of Constantinople: "Today Christ emptied the entire treasury of death."
Proclus of Constantinople: "All the dead, wondering at His Passion, cry for joy, 'We are healed by His stripes!'"
Note: every single one of these quoted were pre-451 Fathers, so they are within the folds/heritage of the Holy Coptic Orthodox Church.
I don’t know why some people are going on u_stole_my_name's case... at least he got patristic teachings. so right now... I can’t trust anyone except him... because he showed what the fathers said about the issue… okay and some from Iqbal... lol...
Peace.
However, even if "all" means an overwhelming, substantial, majority, it is still the salvation of those who died in their sins under the Old Testament. To me, the crux of the matter is Christ's absolute victory over hades, and His ability to free even the lost souls under the OT from hades. He came for all, not just those who lived during His ministry or after it. Salvation in Christ, in this sense, is available to all He choses to make it available to.
This does not necessaily imply that salvation will be universal, though it might be. The doctrine of universal salvation is not heresy, though some (among whom Sts. Augustine and Theophilus) have argued against it. Nor is the doctrine of universal salvation a license to sin. Sin is still death to the soul and one will receive the full fruits of sin unless truly repented off. No-one is reconciled to God while he or she willfully sins (is dedicated to sin rather than God). Universal salvation is a possible outcome if all would respond positively to Jesus Christ. Unconditional salvation (salvation that is forced on us) is heresy (it denies free-will) and alien to the Church. Unlimited salvation is, however, fully Orthodox.
But the extent of God's grace, and how it works, how it will accomplish God's purpose is not fully given to us to know, and certainly not debate about. I have (to my shame) done so before, but have learned (after being taught a lesson by Christ our God) the wisdom of the Fathers to not loose oneself (publicly) in doctrinal discussions that might confuse souls and do them more harm than good. What needs to be affirmed is that sin will not go unpunished and salvation is not automatically given to anyone against one's will and effort. Salvation is both worked for, and received by faith, in one singular act. It cannot be reduced to either the Roman Catholic doctrine of merits, nor to the Protestant doctrine of sola fide (faith alone). Salvation begins by faith and baptism, but will be completed when Christ will return in His Glory. Along the way we must struggle in our hearts to keep the faith and to keep practicing it, for only this unity of faith-and-works is saving faith.
Let us suffice in saying this and keep our faith in Christ obeying His commandments, and leave matters beyond us, to God.
IC XC
Grigorii
As I showed elsewhere throughout my post, to claim that every single pre-New-Testament soul (regardless of their moral or religious state i.e. regardless of how they responded to the law whether that be written or natural) received some sort of a second chance, is contrary to the scriptures; if you can explain and reconcile your interpretation with the verses I brought forth I’ll be willing to revise my position, but until then I will stick with what is evidently (to me anyway) sound exegesis. I agree; but the apostles and prophets of God under the inspiration of His Grace speak in a manner that presupposes a foreknown fact that not all will respond positively. I have no problem in concluding on that note either.
Peace.
But perhaps it is not so much a "second chance"? It was after all before the Incarnation,.. the Grace of the Incarnation was not (yet) available, and it is now. This is being presented to them for the first time I would argue. But again, this not the same as universal salvation. I think that another reading of the prophets would reveal that the future is not "carved in stone" and open in both (heaven and hell) directions. We cannot affirm heaven and deny hell nor affirm hell and deny heaven. They are both very real possibilities, and depending upon how we determine our lives towards or away from Christ. In whatever way they are read, it is clear that sin leads to separation from God, and that this is a hellish torture for those created in His Image. All we can say is that heaven and hell are given to us, God has given it to us to end up in either place, and unless we repent of our sins and have faith in Christ we will end up in hell. By repentance the Gates of Heaven will open, cos Christ is the Way, Truth and the Life.
IC XC
Grigorii
God has declared that He cannot lie and that He cannot deny Himself. What He has testified to is absolute truth; He does not go back on His Word and we are in no position to make exceptions when such exceptions are motivated by emotion rather than reason.
Precisely my point.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
There is nothing in these verses that necessitates the interpretation that all who died before the crucifixion of Christ were saved, regardless of their deeds or the nature of their faith;
Unless, of course, the Fathers expressly interpreted them to mean this, which they did.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
St Augustine himself rejected an interpretation of redemptive teaching by Christ per se.
As great and holy of a servant as Blessed Augustine was, an author of many heresies I might add.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
In any event, we find that the "spirits" being referred to here are those of a specific period i.e. when the “long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah” (verse 20). The preceding verse (verse 19) does not even mention or hint at salvation or deliverance, rather it merely states that He went to these antediluvians and preached to them in the ministry of Noah, announcing His finished work on the Cross. Thus if salvation is involved in any event, it can be interpreted in the sense that Christ made an offer of salvation to those who had never before heard of Him and His Gospel, before their final judgment.
This interpretation does not necessarily preclude that Christ also delivered the post-deluvian un-righteous. Just as when Christ told the thief on the Cross, "I tell you the truth, today you shall be with me in Paradise", He was not necessarily implying that the other thief would not be with Him in Paradise.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
This is the view adopted by St Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata. St Clement asserts (6:6) that those who were deemed righteous according to The Law only required faith to complete their salvation, whereas those who were righteous according to natural law or their philosophies required both faith and repentance of their idolatrous ways.
St. Clement becomes very confusing in this work. He often jumps from references to the "Greek heathen" living in this world to references to those in Hades. As a matter of fact, I believe his tone in this work is quite in-line with those of the "stronger" version.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
The view that those righteous were offered salvation is also the view held by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies Bk. 4 ch.27 when he states: "For this reason it was, that the Lord made His descent into the lower regions beneath the earth, proclaiming and preaching His advent there, and pronouncing the remission of sins that was received by those who believe in Him. Now it was that all those believed in Him and who had hope towards Him; those who proclaimed and prophesied of His advent, and who submitted to His dispensations; those righteous men, the patriarchs and the prophets…"
Again....I don't see what necessitates interpreting this verse so that those who did not "believe in Him" or "had hope towards Him", "proclaimed and prophesied of His advent", "submitted to His dispensations", or who were not "righteous men, patriarchs, or prophets" were necessarily not delivered from Hades. I'd also like to add that Irenaeus endorsed ciliasm, which was anathematized at Constantinople 381.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
Alternatively, Christ’s preaching ministry may be interpreted in the light of Colossians 2:14-15, such that it had its purpose in proclaiming His victory to the enemies; the demon spirits imprisoned in the abyss, such that he proclaimed His triumph which was paradoxically achieved through His death. In the light of 2 Peter 2:4, 9 the spirits being referred to may be identified as fallen angels i.e. demons. In the context of Noah’s period, this is clearly a reference to the divine sons of God of Genesis 6:2, who through their carnally motivated intermarriage with the daughters of Cain, displeased the Lord who then set their life to a limit of 120 years, giving them a chance to repent which they failed to take heed to. This latter interpretation is supported by extra-biblical tradition as found in the book of 1 Enoch, where the righteous Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) goes at the command of God, to the place where these very fallen angels are imprisoned and he proclaims to them their very impending judgment and the punishment due for their sins. The parallel to Peter’s epistle is too remarkable to just be quickly dismissed. Being aware of this extra-biblical tradition, it is plausible that Peter depicted Enoch in a typological sense i.e. like a "type" of Christ and that in 1 Peter 3:19 he portrays the Lord Christ as a kind of "second Enoch" who descends to the spirit world to proclaim the evil spiritsr final downfall (compare Col. 2:15).
You've obviously done your exegetical homework. But once more I'd like to add that the above does not necessarily imply that Christ did not also release every single prisoner therein without exception. Just as I'm sure you don't think the above caption necessarily implies that Christ did not also release ante-deluvian prisoners.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
It is contrary to the scriptures to claim that those who died in sin, and who were neither righteous by the written law of God nor the natural law convicting their very conscious, would have a second chance.
Hebrews 6:4-6: "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
Considering the verse just quoted, you would also be forced to believe that anyone who looked lustfully after a woman, smoked a doobie, or kicked his/her dog after baptism would automatically go to hell. But "with God all things possible."
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
The scriptures explicitly and decisively assert that judgment directly proceeds death such that it is only during one’s lifetime that they are able to repent (Hebrews 3:15-4;11, 9:27).
I just read all those verses, and no where does it imply that those in hades, after death, cannot repent.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
In the parable of Luke 16:19-31, Christ clearly teaches that there is no way for the rich man to escape his very sufferings because between the wicked and the righteous there exists a great chasm that is fixed such that those who wish to cross over to find themselves able to do so (Verse 26). Christ then goes on to warn the rich man that his living brothers only had the opportunity of repentance while they were alive (verses 29-31).
Dude....it's a parable. To turn a parable into a source of metaphysical knowledge makes about as much sense as pretending that the parable of the seed-sower can be used as a lesson in botany. And even granting the cogency of using this moral lesson as a textbook of the after-life, the indication that the rich man cannot cross the chasm means just that: that he, of and by himself, cannot cross the chasm....but the Victorious and Merciful Lord Jesus Christ can.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
The urgency with which the issue of salvation was pressed on the sinners as seen for example in 2 Cor. 6:1-2 can only really be understood as one that is grounded in the conviction that once death takes place, our judgment is sealed. This point is made most explicitly by St Paul in 1 Thessolonians 4:13: “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.”
"If you do not repent of your Sodomy, you will be tormented by devils and fire and chains for hundreds of years!"----Is that not urgent?
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
2) Regarding the patristic quotes which employ the word “all”:
Taking such statemnents to their literal extremes may also prove the heresy of universal salvation from the Biblical text itself: For example, St Paul states in 1 Corinthians:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive... (1Cor 15:22).
...we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.... God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them (2Cor 5:14, 19).
Well...you said it not me. I'll keep quiet for now.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
However, the fact of the matter is, the word "all" in its Greek or even its Hebrew linguistic context, does not necessarily mean "each and every single person"; but rather may indeed be simply referring to an overwhelming or substantial majority.
Oh....you mean like: "God desires all men to be saved"?.....such reasoning would ultimately lead to Calvinism. Au contraire, words like "eternal", "never", "always", "unquenchable", "dieth not" were almost never used literally in Greek or Oriental usage.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
3) Regarding Mr Allin:
It was stated: The problem with Mr Allin is that he is playing with semantics disconnected from their socio-historical context. As Professor Matthew Keener points out, the familiar expression of “better never to have been born” was common in secnd temple Jewish literature, employed as a pronouncement of frightful judgment (1 Enoch 38:2; 4 Ezra 7:69; 2 Bar. 10:6; 2 Enoch 41:2; Greek. Ezra 1:6, 21). Rendering the verse in a manner that finds precedent in second temple Jewish intertestamental literature, we find that the subject of the verse (i.e. the one whom it would have been good for, had he not have been born) is Judas; for he abused his free will, and instead of repenting, decided to take his own life, and thereby brought judgment upon himself.
This whole subject of Judas was quite tangential and was hardly of any import. And anyway, like I said before, perhaps Judas died after Christ. Or perhaps his torments, even if lasting only a few hours, far outweighed those of others for centuries.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
According to all that I have thus far stated in this post, there is no reason for us to conclude that Judas has a second chance after his death to gain salvation.
Unless, of course, the Fathers say otherwise, whether explicitly or implicitly.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=30#msg30016 date=1120221476]
4) Re: blasphemy of the Holy Spirit:
It was stated: Nonsense. The unforgivable is by definition, in the simplest terms a continuous resistance of the Holy Spirit, and hence an unrepentant life. The Church fathers declared that repentance negates blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, such that it is not a case of the unforgivable sin being forgiven via repentance, but rather a case of repentance being evidence of the fact that the unforgivable sin is yet to be committed in the first place.
I'm already exhausted and bored. Please don't make me quote two dozen Fathers again.
This is not an Orthodox teaching or early Father’s saying.
Only those who had died on the hope of resurrection, Christ raised them from Hades and enter with them triumphantly to the Paradise..
Do you have biblical or traditional proof for those statements?
What do you do with the early church fathers quoted by u_stole_my_name on page 1?
as for USMN's references and inconcise exegesis, iqbal refuted all aspects of this heresy, includin the use of the word "all" in the church father quotes, he also refuted the allegations made by him concerning, the verse regarding Judas, made by mr Allin, the unforgivable sin, the notion of limiting God's grace and the sentiment that all pre-new testement souls had a second chance.
now from the bible it is evident through Christ's teaching that something like this would be impossible, ur basically insinuating the idea of bias or favourtism, God showing grace unequally, God created the people who exsited before Christ did he not? therefore he choose who to make before the time of christ in order for them to be saved?? so according to this ideology that means he, in the end gave them salvation, but now for us we dont have a second chance. as i stated before if this is true wats to stop us from believin if we go to hell, after 1000s of years God wont raise us up aswell?
and if clear from the gospels, the chronology of the judas death and Christ's death, that Judas died 1st, therefore he is now in heaven and therefore this contridicts the verse which i brought up earlier and iqbal reinforced that "it would be better for that man if he was never born" (the one who betrays the son of man).
may God give us the grace and wisdom to differenciate between the truth and such fallacies.
Do any believers in the Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are convinced that all people before Jesus were raised from Hades?
As our friend Iqbal once said, “ God forgive in consistency with His attributes, for God cannot deny Himself, and in consistency with His words, for God cannot lie. “
God is infinitely merciful but at the same time He is infinitely the Righteous Judge.
Do any believers in the Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are convinced that all people before Jesus were raised from Hades?
Well, all modern Jews (whether Orthodox, Reform, or whatever) believe in universal salvation....that should mean something. Also, look at the Fathers I quoted on page 1. There are a couple other Fathers who can be quoted in the opposite vein, but the credibility of such Fathers are limited by their lack of a grasp of Greek language (i.e. they were Latin-speakers) and/or their previous involvement in Manichaeism, whose beliefs they never quite renounced fully.
[quote author=Safaa link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30096 date=1120262287]
As our friend Iqbal once said, “ God forgive in consistency with His attributes, for God cannot deny Himself, and in consistency with His words, for God cannot lie. “
That is precisely the point I'm trying to make.
[quote author=Safaa link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30096 date=1120262287]
God is infinitely merciful but at the same time He is infinitely the Righteous Judge.
If you took this line of thought to its obvious conclusion, you would see that God's Mercy is His judgment. The only alternative to this is either Calvinism or Marcionism, both abominable, nauseating heresies.
Despite this tendency amongst many great theologians of the Church, the doctrine was anathemized by the Coptic Church at a synod that was under the direction of Pope Demetrius the Vinedresser.
.....and I'm sincerely saddened how Islam and Missionary-Evangelicalism has effected the Church. If a Coptic Synod declared that 2 + 2 = 5, would you thereby believe it? As I've said before, Popes/Bishops/Synods are supposed to follow Tradition...not create it.
there are to many inconsistencies, in you argument, too many loose ends which can not be explained.
God through out the old and the new testement has made it very clear to us that by choosing the wrong path we suffer the consequences, there are no exceptions.
my friend if the matter is not clear then its safe to go along with the basic ideals of our church which go against these theories.
ill leave it the more capable Iqbal's hands.
as for USMN's references and inconcise exegesis
There are different styles of exegesis. One of these styles includes the use of reason and logic. Semantic/lexicographic/linguistic styles don't have any monopoly on exegesis.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30092 date=1120261376]
now from the bible it is evident through Christ's teaching that something like this would be impossible, ur basically insinuating the idea of bias or favourtism, God showing grace unequally, God created the people who exsited before Christ did he not? therefore he choose who to make before the time of christ in order for them to be saved?? so according to this ideology that means he, in the end gave them salvation, but now for us we dont have a second chance. as i stated before if this is true wats to stop us from believin if we go to hell, after 1000s of years God wont raise us up aswell?
Well....as I said before, you said it, not me. And anyways....in our era, anybody can be filled with the Holy Spirit, Jew or Gentile. Before Pentecost, only a select few (i.e. Prophets, Kings, Priests) were chosen to be vessels of the Holy Spirit. How is that fair for pre-New Testament people? So tit for tat.
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30092 date=1120261376]
and if clear from the gospels, the chronology of the judas death and Christ's death, that Judas died 1st, therefore he is now in heaven and therefore this contridicts the verse which i brought up earlier and iqbal reinforced that "it would be better for that man if he was never born" (the one who betrays the son of man).
I still don't understand what makes Judas worse than say: the men of Sodom who wouldn't to commit buggery with the angels who visited Lot. So he betrayed Jesus, yes. But there are many different kinds of sinners. After all, Judas 1) experienced remorse, 2) refused the wages (i.e. 30 silver pieces) of iniquity, 3) confessed his guilt (i.e. to the Priests), and 4) realized that death was indeed the consequence of sin (i.e. he killed himself). And sure: it would be better for him to never have been born: perhaps because of the remorse he felt?
[quote author=G.J.I link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=45#msg30092 date=1120261376]
may God give us the grace and wisdom to differenciate between the truth and such fallacies.
Amen.
Hello U_stole_my_name,
May I ask you politely what is your denomination? If you do not want to answer, it is O.K., I respect your option.
But if you are a Copt, then you are going against the Holy synod and this is a dangerous road you are embarking on it. If you accept an advice from a friend, then perhaps you need to sit with your F.O.C. to give you the absolution before you take from the Holy Sacraments
“Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” 1 Samuel 15":22:23
May the peace of the Lord be with you
I still don't understand what makes Judas worse than say: the men of Sodom who wouldn't to commit buggery with the angels who visited Lot. So he betrayed Jesus, yes. But there are many different kinds of sinners. After all, Judas 1) experienced remorse, 2) refused the wages (i.e. 30 silver pieces) of iniquity, 3) confessed his guilt (i.e. to the Priests), and 4) realized that death was indeed the consequence of sin (i.e. he killed himself). And sure: it would be better for him to never have been born: perhaps because of the remorse he felt?
wat makes judas worse is that he was condemned by Christ himself. in that verse we mentioned, as we know wen he left them as jesus told him do wat u must, the bible said "satan entered into him"
remorse he felt?
unlikely, such a harsh statement like never to hav been born over remorse?
and if judas is in heaven now then why did they need to replace him in act with matthais?
does that mean cos he was one of the discoples that he will be with them?
certainly not,
this man is in hades.
thankyou mark,
thats very helpful.
You may think I am over-emphasizing or maybe even over-simplifying the use of reason, however since a few theories have thus far been presented, and we are dealing with a non-dogmatic issue, I think it is only reasonable to go with the one that presents us with the least amount of theological or logical dilemmas.
Those of the Old Testament may not have been under the period of grace and truth, but they were under the period of the Law, and according to that Law are they judged. Faith and works go hand in hand, hence the reasoning behind St Clement that only those righteous are offered salvation, in order that they may complete their righteousness with faith in the Incarnation and the Cross such that their righteousness which in and of itself does not suffice in earning salvation, may be justified before God.
Peace.
Hallo xaira,
Do any believers in the Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are convinced that all people before Jesus were raised from Hades?
As our friend Iqbal once said, “ God forgive in consistency with His attributes, for God cannot deny Himself, and in consistency with His words, for God cannot lie. “
God is infinitely merciful but at the same time He is infinitely the Righteous Judge.
Safaa, I put the burden of proof on your table. Please respond with your proofs for your broad and generalized statements about the Church and the Bible and Tradition you made earlier.
If you have none, so state.
Peace.
Points I have proven:
1) Universal salvation is not taught in the scriptures
2) Universal salvation contradicts the scriptural testimony.
3) Universal salvation was condemned as heresy by an authoritative synod in the mid-third century I believe.
I think this constitutes enough evidence for me to disregaed this doctrine. You may want to be a liberal rebel and that is your choice, but as far as Im concerned, the school of Alexandria is under the supervision and authority of the Church of Alexandria. The reliability of what certain theologians have to say, ultimately depends on what the Church says. The Church was entrusted with the authority, and so I submit to this authority, and im sorry but this authority has not declared anything blatantly ridiculous such as "2 + 2 = 5" but has rather anathemized this heresy according to a Biblical truth.
Peace.
When St. Demetrius came along he rigorously combatted the various kinds of magic and gnosticism rampant in Alexandrian Christian circles. Part of his program to maintain the purity of Orthodoxy was to get the School under his direct controle too. The School had many students, not all of whom were Christians. From the Bishops pov this was perfectly correct, but from Origen's pov it was a usurping of the School by the Bishop. This is the background of all later disputes that the two great men were going to have. It finally resulted in the Alexandrian Church being cleansed from gnostics and magic-users, but it also resulted in Origen leaving to Rome, and then Palestine, to escape excesses of St. Demetrius' good intentions.
The condemnations of St. Demetrius are nototiously hard to find out, but they seem to have focussed on Origen claiming that the devil must be saved, his illegitemate ordination to the priesthood, and his being unqualified for the priesthood due to self-castration. None of this carries any "dogmatic weight" in the discussion on Universal Salvation.
Except for, perhaps, the first possible accusation. The necessary salvation of the devil. In response to this accusation Origen wrote a letter saying that he had taught no such doctrine and that only a mad-man would. He had however taught that the devil is not lost by nature but by his own free-will. This he did in a refutation of what was (probably) a Valentinian Gnostic.
His ordination was done to him by a befriended Bishop. It was against his will and own desires (as was frequent in thoise days). But still, this charge is, at least technically, correct. Though again it has a background to it. St. Demetrius had made reforms in the Church. One of which was that non-clergy were no longer allowed to preach a sermon or exegete the Scriptures in Church-Liturgy. Obviously he intended to get control over the contents of sermons and exegesis in order to prevent false teaching. Which in itself is good, but it also limits theological creativity. For example, if a less gifted theologian would have occupied the Throne of Alexandria at the time of Nestorius, we would have been in danger of being overrun with Nestorianism. I think the lesson to be learned from St. Demetrius and Origen is that neither clericalism (some excessive reforms along the lines of St. Demetrius) nor charismatism (excessive emphasis on theological freedom traces of which we clearly find in Origen) is healthy for the Church. We need a balance in these things. Such as we have seen under St. Athanasius and St. Cyril for example.
The self-castration of Origen is infamous, and it rests on two main sources; 1) St. Demetrius' accusation and 2) the report of Eusebius of Ceasarea. It seems, to me, likely that he did indeed castrate himself, maybe by chemical means, even though bodily mutilations among early Christian ascetism was probably frequent and needed to be corrected through the centuries by the saints and doctors of the Church. Again, this accusation is technically correct.
We end up having two non-dogmatic condemnations of St. Demetrius against Origen, and one mistaken condemnation of a dogmatic nature. The latter impatcs universal salvation only in so far as it prohibits to affirm the devil must be saved. Grace is not forced, it is not irresistable (as tSt. Augustine taught). But it must also be stated that the council presided over by St. Demetrius does not, in itself, carry dogmatic infallibility. Its correctnes depends upon being in line with the Scriptures and Tradition. Councils of the Church are not collective Roman Pontiff's. They are canonical gatherings where the Church seeks the voice of the Holy Spirit. But the canons are neither infallible nor universally binding (though the latter does not apply to Ecumenical Councils).
Once again, I'de like to emphasize that the salvation of the unrighteous from Hades by Christ at His descending into hell, is not identical to Universal Salvation. They are two different things! Both of our interpretations of the descent into hell are separate from Universal Salvation. The descent into hell is a Liturgical, Traditional, and Scriptural fact, Universal Salvation is not. If anything, Universal Salvation is a dogmatic opinion avoided (publicly) by most of the fathers who believed in it, and it is denied by many who rejected it. The subject of Universal Salvation usually leads to fierce debates of great emotion and stirs up more passions than a life-time of ascetism can conquer. It is best to avoid that subject in public, and if absolutely necesary to the salvation of someone's soul it can be dealt with privately. Let us be careful not to fight over Mysteries that God has in His control and has not given to us to speak the last word about.
Iow let us be careful not to sit on the Throne in Heaven that is too big for us, and will inflate out ego's to the point of damaging our souls. Let us discuss the descent into hades, but avoid such topics as Universal Salvation. Let us take care not to confuse, for that is certain to happen to a lot of those reading these pages but who do not post on this site. We have no idea how this impacts their spiritual lives, let us therefore not openly argue and make sweeping statements of heresy or orthodoxy about things that the Fathers have judged to bar from public debate.
I will say no more on Universal Salvation, for I have allready said more than I am comfortable with, but felt even less comfortable with not saying it. Any further comments or ideas that are shared in this regard will henceforth be ignored (at least by me) unless sent by PM. I will limit myself to the purpose of this topic. May God forgive me and have mercy on us.
IC XC
Grigorii
However, I would still say that it is not so much a "second chance" the new situation after the Incarnation warrants a first chance to everybody to respond to it. This is due to the uniqueness of the Incarnation. It cannot be so that only sinners after the Incarnation benefit from it. The Gospel must have been preached to the dead too. Such, I think, is clearly the expectation of most of the early fathers (as quoted by u_stole_my_name). Now, this has not been dogmatically been defined, I know that. But at least we should be able to acknowledge that both interpretations are possible and find biblical and patristic support. I know what my personal belief is, but I refuse to dogmatize it.
IC XC
Grigorii
PS I'll respond to your biblical citations the next time I get online.