Cope.
Enjoy hell!

>>25178305
I guess I should have specified.

INTELLIGENT thoughts on That All shall be Saved?

Proves that none of the churches are legitimate, since they all have dogmatized something untenable. If those who claim to be guided by god make idiocy into dogma...
Anyway, if the churches are erroneous then their products are erroneous. Such as 'what is the canon of scripture'.
It quickly slippery slopes to a rejection of Christianity in toto

File: promise_of_heaven.jpg (50 KB, 640x480)

50 KB JPG

>>25178303

>>25178313
>Such as 'what is the canon of scripture'.
>It quickly slippery slopes to a rejection of Christianity in toto
Christianity doesn't depend on the Bible, the Bible depends on Christianity.

>>25178331
And Christianity is one of the churches... Whom have all been proven defeated by Hades for having taught objectively false doctrines (infernalism). Ergo it is impossible to know what Christianity is.

>>25178345
Infernalism isn't a doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Lit has the most bizarre views of Christianity. There's tons of Hindus and Moslems here, then there's the occultists, then there's the fans of intellectual and academic theologians and their liberal bent.

You can tell how brown this place has become based solely on how little of the Christian discussion that occurs here holds any resemblance of Christian orthodoxy

File: IMG_2056.jpg (1.26 MB, 1488x1145)

1.26 MB JPG

>>25178634
Just to be clear, you are including universalism, which has long traditions going back to the early days of Christianity, as Christian Orthodoxy, right?

>>25178643
No, and I wasn't referring to the Orthodox church when I used the word orthodoxy.

>>25178652
Did you expect all discussions if Christianity to follow the Catechisms of Catholicism or Lutheranism or other such denominations?

People who don't understand the Holiness of God will often focus on His divine and perfect love, but totally ignore His divine and perfect wrath.

Ultimately it's pride. It's a high view of man, and a low view of God. You feel you don't deserve to be judged, amd so you pretend you won't be. The greatest of perils.

>>25178658
No, but neither did I expect for there to appear, in virtually every discussion, the most fringe amd unorthodox views, along with the standard smattering of heresy from the first 6 centuries.

File: IMG_6177.jpg (1.04 MB, 1936x1620)

1.04 MB JPG

>>25178677
>wrath
You know how some Christians talk about "hate the sin, not the sinner", likewise, God's love for everyone isn't dminished by sin.
>the most fringe amd unorthodox views,
Universalism was the majority view among the Church Fathers and saints of early Christianity, there is nothing heretical about it. Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Isaac of Nineveh, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Makrina, all of them were universalists.

>>25178691
>>wrath
>You know how some Christians talk about "hate the sin, not the sinner", likewise, God's love for everyone isn't dminished by sin.

Yes.

>Universalism was the majority view among the Church Fathers and saints of early Christianity, there is nothing heretical about it. Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Isaac of Nineveh, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Makrina, all of them were universalists

I couldn't say if they were or weren't, but I can say with certainty that Universalism is extremely unorthodox and widely regarded as heresy

I have a nasty feeling the Perennialists might be right. All religions contain some aspect of that ultimate truth and universal salvation is just there. Waiting. I kind of wish unitarians weren't such homogays.

File: IMG_6178.jpg (1.28 MB, 1942x1620)

1.28 MB JPG

>>25178708
>I couldn't say if they were or weren't
You could if you read their writings
>Universalism is extremely unorthodox and widely regarded as heresy
Because infernalism was adopted by clergy and secular authorities post-Augustine because it was effective at scaring lay persons into obedience, it's nothing but a psychological terror tactic to assert imperial rule. The Bible was intentionally misread and misinterpreted by infernalists so that, in their eyes, the God of love and mecy, the Christian God, became the God of torture and wrath.

Early Church fathers and Saints wrote about the eventual apokatastasis of the devil, the eventual reconciliation of Lucifer himself with God, but infernalists ignored their writings, or declared them heresy.

>>25178716
This is a good example of the weird Christian/lit/izen takes offered by non-Christians that are so standard here. Why does he bother to mention Unitarianism??

>>25178719
Typical rejection of Scripture in favor of the teaching of men

>>25178727
1 Corinthians 15:22
“For just as in Adam all die, so also in the Anointed [Christ] all will be given life.)
”
All WILL be given life, infernalists like to add conditionals to very clear verses like these, where no such conditionals exist. All WILL be given life.

Later Infernalists have even removed entire words from the bible to fit their incorrect dogma, such as in 1 Philippians 2:10-11 "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow….
and every tongue should GLADLY confess that Jesus Christ is Lord"

>>25178303
It's presents some good arguments, although I also think it has some glaring flaws:

A. Overly combative tone about something so speculative.

B. Vastly overstates its historical evidence. To be sure, the opposite camp is guilty of the same sin, but two wrongs don't make a right. He leans heavily on Saint Basil's rule making a common rhetorical move between the ignorant "many" and the enlightened "few" for instance, that probably doesn't say much about Cappadocian average beliefs at all.

C. Talbot's "The Inescapable Love of God" makes the Scriptural argument far better and has a more accessible version of the philosophical argument (granted, it isn't as couched in Patristic tradition re metaphysics).

It also seems to forget that "fear of the LORD is the begining of wisdom."

I also don't like how Scotus became a punching bag for that crowd (Milbank originally), whereas Ockham is a more fair target. Then Hart turns on later Thomists, which is fair in some cases, but guys like Cajetan and Poinsot have a lot to offer and are being slandered these days.

File: 16226.jpg (66 KB, 550x397)

66 KB JPG

>>25178754
Plus, with Cajetan, Luther seething is a great image

>>25178303

American protestan Christianity is capitalistic and jewish

>>25178760
David B. Hart is Eastern Orthodox

File: Sproul Chosen by God.jpg (42 KB, 389x621)

42 KB JPG

>>25178303

>>25178308
Asking for intelligent thoughts on Christian theology is like asking for intelligent thoughts on the theory of humours

bump

The butt hurt reviews for this book are very funny. All of them are basic misunderstandings of the arguments made at an elementary level.

enjoyhell.com

>>25179201
>>25179201
I love David B. Hart's responses to his critics.

>A belief does not merit unconditional reverence just because it is old, nor should it be immune to being challenged in terms commensurate to the scandal it seems to pose. And the belief that a God of infinite intellect, justice, love, and power would condemn rational beings to a state of perpetual torment, or would allow them to condemn themselves on account of their own delusion, pain, and anger, is probably worse than merely scandalous. It may be the single most horrid notion the religious imagination has ever conceived, and the most irrational and spiritually corrosive picture of existence possible. And anyone who thinks that such claims are too strong or caustic, while at the same time finding the traditional notion of a hell of everlasting suffering perfectly unobjectionable, needs to consider whether he or she is really thinking clearly about the matter at all. If anything, my rhetoric in the book may have been far, far too mild.

https://publicorthodoxy.org/2020/06/12/defense-of-tone-of-voice/

thought it was "shaved" for a second and I didn't like it one bit

>>25179288
That rodent just loves to stoke the flames higher.

>>25179309
You're only butthurt at him because you can't refute him

>>25178319
Yes, that's exacly why we need religion. You don't need to do a lot of examination to notice 80% of people are not only stupid but naturally evil, that they will lie, cheat and kill to get what they want, and you'll not get enlightenment by some contrived "morally better" value, you'll achieve a better world with institutionally monopolized violence under custodians of morals, and we're only lucky to have born on a society where these custodians spent the last 300 years being christian instead of muslim or indu or whatever the chinese are doing. You're still better off living in a society where wretched men fearing for their eternal souls in spite of them being smart or not, than any of the other options.

>>25179332
>80% of people are not only stupid but naturally evil, that they will lie, cheat and kill to get what they want
>You're still better off living in a society where wretched men fearing for their eternal souls
This is the kind of misanthropicism, and irrational logic that caused infernalism to flourish and take hold in Church institutions(not all of them, mainly in Western Christianity) starting from the 4th century AD. Reducing Christianity from the good news, to merely a psychological boogeyman, an instrument of societal control.

>>25178303
The Church Fathers already dealt with this issue and they came down firmly on the side of Infernalism. Universalism is heresy and neither that author nor (You) know better than them. Sit down and be quiet.

>>25179354
>The Church Fathers already dealt with this issue and they came down firmly on the side of Infernalism
Saint Gregory of Nyssa didn't, Saint Clement of Alexandria didn't, Saint Isaac of Nineveh didn't. For whatever reason, the Catholic church just decided to take Augustine's misinterpretations of Paul and run with that.

>>25178303
>Matthew 22:12—Many are called, but few are chosen.
>Matthew 7:14–15—Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
>Matthew 7:21—Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
>Matthew 8:12—The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
>Matthew 13:49–50—So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

File: 438675063_122144465030198(...).jpg (32 KB, 250x314)

32 KB JPG

>>25179365
>random lit posters thinking they're greater theologians than augustine

>>25179434
Oh man copypasted bible verses. Foiled again by the invincible debate strategy of the brwpn tradlarper.

>>25179461
kill yourself

>>25179461
The disgruntled and unhinged atheist has arrived.

File: quote-food-is-not-evil-bu(...).jpg (77 KB, 850x400)

77 KB JPG

>>25179288
You cannot have rational creatures oriented towards theosis without the possibility of falleness, for the creature's likeness to God entails its own trancedence of its finitude.

Hart here seems to be preferencing the suffering of the wicked as a consequence of justice over the beatitude of the righteous—as if no rational creatures should exist on account of the wicked. This is to preference evil, which is ultimately nothing, over the Good. That is, the idea seems to be that the righteous should not exist to give God glory and attain their victors' crowns on account of the wickedness of the wicked.

Surely this is completely backwards. God, in His infinite mercy offers salvation to all, and sent his only begotten Son to die for sinners. Yet surely it is also not compatible with divine Justice that the wicked be rewarded for wickedness.

Now we have faith that God is a just judge. What more else need be said. To each shall be rendered according to their deeds, but also according to the unending mercy and unperishing justice of the Lord.

>>25179365
Weird to focus on Saint Augustine and Catholics when this is a belief of most of the Fathers (who speak explicitly on it at all) and doctrine in the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches too.

>mih church fathers said so
Catholics constantly show and tell you who they actually worship and it ain't the carpenter.

File: Screenshot_2026-03-31_15-42-07.jpg (117 KB, 939x732)

117 KB JPG

>>25179484
This dude is definitely Orthodox, but yes.

What does Hart make of verses like picrel?

Seems to me that universalism, cessationalism, etc. all stems from the disbelief of God being capable of doing something "bad". It's always man projecting his morals onto God, or viewing Scripture through the lenses of human concepts of morality.

>>25179434
>>Matthew 22:12—Many are called, but few are chosen
How is this verse infernalist? The few who were chosen in that parable didn't turn up to the wedding feast, the man who were called did.

>Matthew 7:14–15
"A quote from the paper titled: Hell is a Christian Hoax by L. Ray Smith.

The King James Version of Matt. 7:13-14 is not completely accurate according to the New Testament Greek Manuscripts. The phrase "many there be which go in thereat" should read: "many are those entering through it."

And the phrase "and few there be that find it," should read: "and few are finding it."

So what's the difference, you ask? The difference is that the words in the King James translated "go in thereat" and "that find it" are in the Greek aorist (indefinite--past, present, and future) tense, and therefore need to be translated "entering through it," and "are finding it." This Greek tense of the verb shows that this is the present condition of the majority of humanity, not humanity's ultimate eternal destiny.

Yes NOW, in this present Church age, only the "FEW chosen" are going God's way that leads to "life." But it is the "MANY called" that are presently following the path that leads to destruction. It is those who are "perished, lost, and destroyed," that Jesus came to save. Nowhere in Scripture are those that are presently lost, perished, or destroyed, beyond the reach of God's righteous judgments and saving grace."

>Matthew 7:21
Talking about the kingdom of Heaven on Earth, the millenial reign, not ultimate salvation. This kingdom isn't eternal, it will last for an age, but it will end before the final salvation of all.
As David B. Hart says
>“For myself, I prefer a much older, more expansive, perhaps overly systematic approach to the seemingly contrary eschatological expectations unfolded in the New Testament—an approach, that is, like Gregory of Nyssa’s or Origen’s, according to which the two sides of the New Testament’s eschatological language represent...two different moments within a seamless narrative, two distinct eschatological horizons, one enclosed within the other. In this way of seeing the matter, one set of images marks the furthest limit of the immanent course of history, and the division therein—right at the threshold between this age and the “Age to come—between those who have surrendered to God’s love and those who have not; and the other set refers to that final horizon of all horizons, “beyond all ages,” where even those who have traveled as far from God as it is possible to go, through every possible self-imposed hell, will at the last find themselves in the home to which they are called from everlasting, their hearts purged of every[…]”

1/2

File: Dante_Domenico_di_Michelino.jpg (490 KB, 1200x966)

490 KB JPG

>>25179479
There is this weird thing in some contemporary Orthodox circles of attacking Saint Augustine, even though figures like Saint Gregory Palamas use him extensively. Or they totally dismiss Saint Thomas Aquinas despite key figures like Nicholas Kabasilas using him extensively and period Orthodox having more limited, specific objections.

Also Hart seems to profoundly miss the point of the Commedia in that book. The view of God in the Inferno is the view of the sin addled damned. God's mercy shines brighter the higher Dante ascends. The damned are pointedly never accepting responsibility for their sins and never repentant. If they were repentant they wouldn't be there (as we see, Purgatory is full of the wicked). Dante's point isn't some sort of concrete description of the afterlife, it's revealing the nature of sin.

>>25178658
Most prots unironically use lower-case O orthodoxy, and generally understand it to mean the Trinity. I honestly don't know what else Prots agree on besides that. (And some don't.) A lot of the New Calvinists in the U.S. are trying to lay claim to the Puritan tradition (whose progeny ironically started Unitarianism) and argue that Protestantism is the trait of being an American, and if you aren't Protestant then you are a 3rd worldist or something. They've retreated from defending themselves on their flimsy 1600's theological grounds and are now just resorting to chauvinism to appear the most based.
>>25178643
Trying to twist a quote from St. Isaac to somehow be universalist is an interesting choice.
>>25178303
From the Eastern Orthodox perspective it's heretical. Some people prefer hell, arguably most people do. Theosis requires co-operation from the person.
>>25178791
Based scientismo. Humours and bloodletting are ridiculous outdated concepts (and products of muh science), but MRNA shots and gender re-assignment surgery will be celebrated for hundreds of years as the peak of scientific thinking, I bet.

>>25179474
>You cannot have rational creatures oriented towards theosis without the possibility of falleness, the creature's likeness to God entails its own trancedence of its finitude.
Humans are finite creatures, we are not transcendent beings. Humans have rational wills only to the extent that they are oriented towards a final end, a final purpose, that purpose is transcendent good, transcendent beauty, which is God. Rational wills are oriented towards God, even though they may will proximate ends, God is the final end they will, as such even when they reject God, they only do so because, despite their irrationality and ignorance, they seek God. Rational wills are only free when they have freedom from ignorance and freedom from delusional so that they may choose which ends satisfy their natures, and for all rational wills, the ultimate end is God. Thus it is impossible for a free and knowledgable will to reject God for eternity.

>>25179501
>L. Ray Smith
> His biblical background was that he didn't belong to a church, and worked as a roofer and taught himself the bible.

lol

>>25179509
>From the Eastern Orthodox perspective it's heretical.
There is nothing in Eastern Orthodox doctrine that declares universalism to be heretical

>>25179522
appeal to authority. Open up the Greek bible, and check his claims yourself if you wish.

Tradlarpers belong on /his/ btw.

>>25179504
St. Augustine is the only church father read widely by Prots and Catholics alike. Orthodox in the West and online have to defend against incorrect interpretations of him from those traditions. He is still considered an Orthodox saint, and I don't think any Orthos would deny that.
Thomas Aquinas on the other hand is not an Orthodox saint, and if period people didn't object too much it's probably because they didn't care back then? And they didn't have to since they rarely mixed with Western Catholics. Now that Orthodox are in the West and sharing online spaces with Thomists, it's becoming more of a problem that has to be addressed.

>>25179509
>Trying to twist a quote from St. Isaac to somehow be universalist is an interesting choice.
No twisting is needed, that quote is explicitly universalist.

>>25179509
>doesn't understand what the word orthodoxy means outside of the context of the eastern church
>doesn't understand why america considers itself a protestant nation

Hmm

>>25179529
Athanasius, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Jerome, too.

>>25179459
>random /lit/ posters thinking they know more than Clement

Anything that contravenes the doctrine of the one true Church is heresy. Universalism is heresy.

>>25179527
What's his translation of the Matthew 7 verses?

Here's the Greek from the Nestle Aland 28:
Gemini said

13 Εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης· ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς·

14 τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν, καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν.

>>25179546
>random /lit/ posters thinking Clement knows more than Augustine

File: dr.retard.jpg (71 KB, 600x403)

71 KB JPG

>>25178303
>what if i told you dat everything you know about christianity is wrong

>>25179567
>Clement: lived 150-215AD, was likely taught by people who were taught by people who were taught by the Apostles
>Augustine: lived 354-430, born 10 generations after the Apostles
Whose interpretations of the New Testament would you trust more? Clement who read the texts, in their original Greek, and interpeted them as they are, or Augustine, who barely knew Greek, reading from a Latin translation, somehow came up with the doctrine of inherited sin from Adam, which appears no where in the New Testament, and lead to the absurd, false Catholic belief that babies who died before baptism spent an eternity apart from God in Purgatory?

>>25179501
>How is this verse infernalist?
Because of the previous verse—Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
>This Greek tense of the verb shows that this is the present condition of the majority of humanity
This contradicts Paul—There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
>Talking about the kingdom of Heaven on Earth, the millenial reign, not ultimate salvation.
How does that fit with Matt 16:19—And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Clearly the Kingdom of Heaven is in, you know, Heaven, and not Earth.

>>25179588
I forgot you guys reject original sin/total depravity

nothin' but a bunch of feel-good easy-believism from the EO crowd, apparently. very egotistical for navel gazing mystics.

>>25179534
t. someone who failed Logic 101.

>>25179529
They had all sorts of debates back and forth. Palamas debated Dominicans using Thomas, Kabasilas paraphrases Thomas, there is the whole Council of Florence and others. There was plenty of exchange then.

>>25179500
>cessationalism
annihilationism*

>>25179537
Yeah dude, Protestantism is a mirage, only the Reformed bros I mentioned even try to use "orthodoxy" anymore to try and act like there's some sort of Protestant consensus. Martin Luther would have literally tried to have half of American prots put to death, including many of those calling themselves Lutheran now. Reformed-ism is a mix of Calvinism, Radical Reformation beliefs, and Zwingli. Where do we find this elusive orthodoxy in American "Protestantism"? Calvin Robinson was invited to a Reformed bro conference, and had to back down because he espoused beliefs shared by John Calvin like Mary being perpetually virgin.
Which of these historical Protestant groups can lay claim to America now? The Puritans progeny started unitarianism and wokeism, the burned over district is Catholic now btw. The Mormons, the JWs? The Southern Baptists who can't even agree on the Nicene Creed? The Episcopalians or the Presbyterians with lesbian clergy? What do all these groups agree is orthodox? Which one is the American one?

File: IMG_2439.jpg (991 KB, 1297x1043)

991 KB JPG

>>25179597
>Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
How do you read infernalism in that parable? Jesus often used metaphors and parables, reading infernalism into those parables is a stretch, see pic related.
>This contradicts Paul
Paul goes onto say that God will finally show mercy to all (Romans 11:32). Paul denies that vessels of wrath exist.

Paul also states in Philippians 2:11 that every tongue will gladly profess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Note how so many bibles mistranslate that verse by living out 'gladly', so that it fits an infernalist interpretation.

>>25179630
Heresy begets more heresy begets more heresy.
, how sad.

>>25179666
>Jesus often used metaphors and parables
What's "weeping and gnashing of teeth" a metaphor for, then? What about the parable of the Lazarus and the Rich Man? Clearly the Rich Man is in torment after death.
>Paul goes onto say that God will finally show mercy to all (Romans 11:32).
He says he MIGHT have mercy on all, if they ask for it.
>ignores all my other points
kill yourself

>>25179288
>would condemn rational beings to a state of perpetual torment, or would allow them to condemn themselves on account of their own delusion, pain, and anger, is probably worse than merely scandalous.

In which the covert gnostic shows his ass— perfect freedom requires it. We are not made in his image otherwise. And it is not as though he is compartmentalized in omniscience from all suffering of all beings. Annihilation is the limit of His mercy for the intransigent, the Lake of Fire must be for truly unforgivable acts of perdition. It is not a matter of Mind and being availed of 'universal salvation' by Christ delivering hell harrowing Mulligans to the depraved: it is a matter of the Heart. No one in Paradise can feel or think "I GOT AWAY WITH IT!?" Hart's a recipe for Christian Sabbateanisms.

>>25179588
>from Adam

Threw Eve under the bus before abd instead of confessing his actions and begging forgiveness, which was possibly worse than the forbidden fruit itself.

>orthobro and tradcath heresy thread
>they still have time to find common ground and seethe and cry about prots and Martin Luther

lmao

>>25179690
>What about the parable of the Lazarus and the Rich Man?
It's a parable, parables are not to be taken literally. Both the rich man and Lazarus are in the same place after death, hades, not heaven or hell, but hades, the anciern Greek abode of the dead, that had bad parts and good parts(elysium) to it. Neither Lazarus nor the Rich man believed in or disbelieved Jesus Christ, the entire parable is not to be taken literally as a description of the afterlife.

>>25179703
>perfect freedom
refer to >>25179519. Perfect freedom CANNOT involve a rejection of God, if a will rejects God then it is not free.

>>25179709
That's Adam's sin, not his descendents'. Inherited sin is wrong and retarded.

>Matthew 22:12—Many are called, but few are chosen.
>Matthew 7:14–15—Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
>Matthew 7:21—Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
>Matthew 8:12—The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
>Matthew 13:49–50—So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
0/5 of these bible quotes have been refuted.

>>>25179342
>infernalism to flourish and take hold in Church institutions
Yes, because the same wretches are leading the church, so they lead it to whatever their own interests are, which for the longest of times was the same as banks today, to decide who earns the money from mass commerce. You're still better off with the christians and their hypocrisy than whatever heathen from uncolonized Asia. Or worse, the middle east
>Reducing Christianity from the good news, to merely a psychological boogeyman, an instrument of societal control
Yes, it's a Stirner's spook, and we're lucky to be in that one instead of any other, and whomever have enough sense should come to the cover of the blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ instead of whatever bullshit they're pursuing now.

>>25179764
I'm kind of tired, it's 11pm here, I'll reply tomorrow when I wake up

>>25179770
more like you can't refute them so you're chickening out, you piece of shit

>>25179774
wait 7 hours

In the meantime, ponder:
Titus 2:11 “For the grace of God has appeared, giving salvation to all human beings”

Not offering, GIVING.

>>25179792
what then did the same writer mean by the following in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9


8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

>>25179792
>>25179770
I can already predict what this guy will do. He will say the Bible can't contradict itself, therefore a universalist-sounding verse like Ti 2:11 must necessarily be true literally and narrowly, even though it can be also be read as 'God has given salvation to all human beings [but not all will necessarily accept it].' Then he just has to find a way to hand-wave all the verses that directly contradict his reading of Ti 2:11 (and a couple of similar verses). All heretics have the same underlying methodology.

>>25179817
Another even more transparently retarded tack he may take is to say since his retarded reading of Ti 2:11 is contradicted by other verses the truth is that we just can't heckin' know whether universalism or infernalism is true but we ought to hope for universalism. It's childish stuff, I ruined a friendship arguing about this, people get upset and understandably so, but the Bible says what it says, repeatedly and clearly.

File: s-l400.png (172 KB, 300x400)

172 KB PNG

>>25178767
Based. I'm taking his Dust to Glory course right now.

>>25179792
Your translation sucks ass.
>For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
It's APPEARED to all men, not SALVATION to all men.

>>25179567
>random /lit/ posters thinking Augustine knows more than Clement
Your original argument is just bad, there clearly were early Christians who were universalists, I don't have to be a genius myself to take their views seriously.
You might side with another thinker but that isn't any less random than me.

>>25179946
Augustine mogs all other church fathers and it isn't even close.

>>25179764
>>Matthew 22:12—Many are called, but few are chosen.
Parable of the wedding banquet, like all parables, it isn't supposed to be taken seriously, the parable describes the pharisees rejection of his message, THEY were the 'chosen', the people who the king sent out invites to didn't come to the banquet. But many, BOTH good and bad, were called to the banquet, and they had no problems attending. This disproves your assertion that this oarable has anything to do with the eschatological fate of Humanity in the afterlife.
1/5

>>25178319
When will this stupid fucking idea die. Go read Hume.

>>25180399
>the pharisees rejection of his message, THEY were the 'chosen'
Are you retarded? Let me break it down for you.
>Initially invited guests = Pharisees and rejective Jews = CALLED but not CHOSEN
>Guests invited of the streets = Gentiles = CALLED
>Guy without wedding clothes = hypocrite Christians = CALLED but not CHOSEN
>Implied people in wedding clothes = true Christians = CALLED and CHOSEN
0/5

>>25179764
>>Matthew 7:13-24
There is no indication that this verse refers to eternal torment. The word translated as 'destruction' is apoleian, from the root apollumi, which W. E. Vine says, “The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of wellbeing.” A similar word, apololos, is used to describe the lost son in Luke 15:24, the same word is used in Luke 19:10, a similar word, apolesas, is used to describe the lost sheep in Luke 15:4. Neither the lost sheep nor the lost son were permanently lost, and there is no indication that those who enter the wide gate are permanently lost either, there certainly is no evidence for eternal torment in that verse.
>>Matthew 7:21
Referring to the Messianic kingdom on Earth, that after an age will be delivered up to God along with the rest of the universe for the final salvation as described in Corinthians.

>>25180443
The people who beat up the slaves the king sent were the ones who were chosen, the king invited them himself, he sent out oersonal invitations. THEY were the few who were chosen. If you're reading this parable with an infernalist bias, literally reading meanings into the parable that don't exist, then I can't explain it to you any further.
>>Implied people in wedding clothes
BOTH good and bad people were called to the wedding and the bad weren't kicked out, only the one man with no wedding clothes was.

>>25180453
>The people who beat up the slaves the king sent were the ones who were chosen,
Shut the fuck up

>>25180451
>There is no indication that this verse refers to eternal torment.
See Matthew 25:46.
>Referring to the Messianic kingdom on Earth
What the hell are you talking about?

>>25180501
aionios doesn't mean eternal, it means age, its where the English word aeon comes from. Aidios in Greek means eternal, the correct translation of that verse is:
46"And these will go to the chastening of that Age, but
the just to the life of that Age.
”
>What the hell are you talking about?
The reign of Jesus on Earth that will last for an age, preceding the ultimate salvation of all.

>>25180497
The few who were chosen were the ones who the king personally sent invites to, they killed the king's servants, the many who were called were the many people, good and bad, who the king called to his banquet without any invites, I don't know how I can make it any clearer for you.

>>25180529
>The few who were chosen were the ones who the king personally sent invites to
kill yourself

>>25180525
>aionios doesn't mean eternal, it means age
you're so full of shit

File: IMG_2463.jpg (1.59 MB, 1367x1945)

1.59 MB JPG

>>25180536
>>25180535
>infernalists when presented with evidence instead of psychological terror tactics meant to enforce obedience.
I'l respond to the other verses when I'm free(should be soon).

>>25180549
kill yourself

>>25178319
imagine being the owner of that building.

>>25178319
99% of the people are unintelligent

File: IMG_2470.jpg (151 KB, 1284x181)

151 KB JPG

>>25180501
>>25180536
And a further comment on Matthew 25:46, not only does aionios not mean eternity, but instead 'age', the Greek word for 'punishment', kolasis, mentioned in that verse is not retributive punishment, but restorative punishment, like your teacher giving you a one hour detention afterschool for misbehaving in class. That's why in the translation I mentioned here >>25180525, it's translated as chastening rather than 'punishment', as the latter English word lacks the inherent restorative connotation of kolasis.

I think universalism isn't so much about seriously believing it, but distinguishing yourself as a more sophisticated, intelligent, and cultured Christian than the masses of rubes that make you look bad by association.

>>25179738
>Inherited sin is wrong and retarded.
>... for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me

>>25180695
It's not a lack of sophistication, or intelligence, or culture, that makes infernalists look bad, it's the fact that they believe that the god they worship is a spiteful, venegful, evil god, a god that would create a being, knowing fully beforehand everything that being was going to say and think and do, knowing fully beforehand that that being would be punished by them for eternity, and then deciding to create that being anyway. The god of infernalists is a satanic god, not the Christian God.

And Saint Isaac of Nineveh agrees >>25178643.

>>25180702
>Old Testament
Not Christian. Christians also don't believe in the multiple gods mentioned in the Old Testament

>>25180704
I think this argument is silly. It's basically the same sort of argument you find from atheists: "if God is like that then I don't like God therefore God doesn't exist." Swap that to "If God is like that then God is evil (according to my personal judgment) therefore God isn't like that." A church father saying it doesn't make it less silly.
>>25180709
What's the point of arguing with some ridiculous position like this?

>>25180684
Bullshit. Just because its primitive meaning is “checking” of the growth of trees does not mean it does not mean punishment or retribution or torment. Look it up in a good Greek dictionary like I just did. This is typical pseudo-etymological reasoning from universalists, absolute rubbish. (Did you know “absolute” REALLY means “free”??)

>>25180704
>If God created a person knowing that they would be gay and that this would lead them to being condemned, then God would have not have created them gay, but he did, therefore being gay is not wrong or disordered
"Logic"

>>25180711
>What's the point of arguing with some ridiculous position like this?
This a thread about Christianity, not Judaism. If you're going to take the Old Testament descrpitions of God literally, descriptions which are not only contradictory with themselves and New Testament descriptions of God, but descriptions that portray God as a mass-murdering maniac who orders the genocide of entire nations, including children, then you'll have a larger logical problem on your hands.

>>25180684
>1. The Classical vs. Koine Distinction

The argument for a "restorative" connotation usually points back to Aristotle, who distinguished between τιμωριˊα (timōria—retributive punishment for the sake of the punisher) and κoˊλασις (kolasis—correction for the sake of the punished). In ancient agricultural Greek, the root related to "pruning" a tree to help it grow.

However, as BDAG and Silva both note, this distinction had largely evaporated by the first century. In Koine Greek, κoˊλασις was the standard term for judicial penalty. In the Septuagint and Josephus, it is used for capital punishment and divine retribution where restoration is not the intended outcome. To insist on a "pruning" or "rehabilitative" meaning in the New Testament is often an example of the Etymological Fallacy—assuming a word's earliest root must dictate its meaning centuries later.

>>25180716
There’s a place in Aristotle’s Rhetoric where he directly opposes kolasis (punishment) to timoria (vengeance). Whether that distinction survived in koine in its purity idk, it would seem not given the context of some of its uses. Also Plutarch uses it as retribution.

>>25180734
>If you take the position of all orthodox Christians throughout history then blah blah blah
No one cares

>>25180743
Sorry I meant to quote the entire output.

The universalists haven't made any convincing arguments in this thread.

>>25180724
You are attacking a strawman false binary

the options are not
1) God would not damn eternally for bad behavior so that bad behavior like faggotty is therefore justified
2) Hell is eternal.

When redemption and reconciliation occurs that can be after a long period of post-mortem purification and correction that makes the soul turn away from its sinful behavior and embrace God fully, this was a normal view of universal reconciliation in the early church, it was almost never thought to be an automatic reconciliation that just happens at death.

>>25180711
>according to my personal judgment)
You're implying that God is above Human understanding, that is only partly true, Humans cannot understand the infinity of God, but we can understand what God is like, by way of analogy. Jesus uses analogy in the New Testament to make his followers understand God's love, when he says that God the Father is to Humanity as their paternal love is to their own children.

God has to be in a sense good in the way that Humans understand, God has to be in a sense merciful in a way that Humans understand, God has to be NOT evil in a way that Humans understand. If that were not the case, as David B. Hart writes:

"If, though, our theological claims oblige us to use words in such a way that their creaturely and divine meanings become clearly antithetical to one another, then at once those predicates become equivocal and so meaningless. As soon as this happens, a contagion of equivocity is inaugurated, one that must ultimately render all Christian language both semantically and syntactically vacuous. This is important to emphasize at the outset because, as the book’s argument unfolds, one persistent temptation for some readers will be to beat a sudden retreat to an inflexible insistence on absolute inscrutable divine sovereignty as the only valid divine predicate, and to the consequent claim that we must not presume to judge God’s actions in terms of good and evil as we understand them. A devout dialectical strategy, no doubt, but a self-defeating one."

If Humans truly could not understand God, if Humans were not supposed to judge God's actions and attributes, then:

"At that point, faith is a pure epistemological nihilism, neither conceptually nor morally distinguishable from faithlessness. We are no longer even be able to adduce “reasons” for believing anything."

>>25180745
I assure you, most Orthodox Christians were not Biblical literalists, you'll hardly find an Orthodox Christian defending the genocide of the Amaleks or claiming the Earth was only 6,000 years old, as Biblical literalists such as Evangelicals might do.
>>25180748
>it was almost never thought to be an automatic reconciliation that just happens at death.
It's an entirely catholic invention that reconcillation after death wasn't possible, it is, the Bible says it is, none of the early Church Fathers believed that dying in a state of "mortal sin" entailed eternal torment.

>>25180749
Analogy works when God makes the analogy but not necessarily when you do it. When God conveys analogical knowledge of himself to us, that analogy is true because it has been condescended by God himself. When you make an analogical statement about God, that statement is coming from your flawed knowledge and understanding. The fact that it's comprehensible and relatable to your understanding is not what makes the analogy trustworthy, but that the source is from God and not (You).

>>25180749
Philosophy seems to corrupt and destroy nearly everyone who seriously involves themselves with it.

>>25180751
>you'll hardly find an Orthodox Christian defending the genocide of the Amaleks or claiming the Earth was only 6,000 years old, as Biblical literalists such as Evangelicals might do.
This is a silly thing to say as well, and I think proves I was correct that this is about pretentious sophistication more than anything else. There is certainly a type of Orthodox Christian that wants to sell you this sort of idea, though, I'll give you that.

>>25180754
The Bible states that God is good and merciful, what sense is there in describing God to Humans if as you claim Humans could not possibly understand him, with the exception of specific analogies(even though the entirety of the new testament is filled with analogy in the form of parables)?

And for you on a personal level, what sense is there in you believing in God if you do not judge God as good? Do you just blindly follow the religion of your parents or your society? Are you just engaged in pascal's wager? What's the difference between your "faith" and nihilism?

>>25180760
When God states that he is "good" does this mean that he is "good" according to whatever you personally think "good" means, or does it mean that you should understand what "good" properly means by reference to God?

>>25180766
It's just a vibe bro

>>25180743
There is a specific word for retributive punishment in Greek, timoreitai, that word still existed in the first and second centuries with its original connotations. Later Greek dictionaries might add 'retributive punishment' as one of the meanings of kolasis, but Clement and Origin, two native Greek speakers, seemed to disagree, in their readings of the New Testament in Greek, they arrived ar the conclusion that its use of kolasis still meant restorative punishment, and I tend to agree with them, again, two native Greek speakers living in the second centuries, rather than with later theologians living in later times where the original meanings and uses of kolasis would have shifted even further than its original strict meaning(as you rightly pointed, by the 1st century it was beginning to be referred to both restorative and retributive punishments rather than JUST restorative ones, but Clement and Origen would have made their decisions based on the contexts of the texts they were reading as a whole.)

>>25180766
You have an innate sense of right or wrong, your conscience, that sense of right or wrong isn't perfect, just as it isn't perfect for all other Humans, but on a deeper level, you do judge whether the way that the Bible portrarys God to you aligns with your sense of right and wrong. If you truly did depend on the bible for all of your sense of right and wrong, then you would be very easy to manipulate via different interpretations and mistranslations of the Bible into believing things which aren't actually right, such as a belief in eternal torment. It was this exact doubt in an internal conscience that lead John Calvin into his horrible doctrine of predestination, arriving at some of the most evil interpretations of God from centuries of accumulated mistranslations and misinterpretations.

>>25180786
Eternal punishment in hell seems fine to me. Maybe your sense of morality is just disordered.

File: IMG_2475.jpg (93 KB, 1318x199)

93 KB JPG

>>25180791
>Eternal punishment in hell seems fine to me.
Then your morality is even more distorted than a satanist's. The god you believe in is an outright devil, certainly not the Christian God.

>>25180798
Cool opinion, bro.

>>25180760
Your god in the old testament is not a very nice person. Not certainly one that I would follow. I've read the old testament. Your book, written around 350 AD a a knockoff of the 7 tablets of the Enuma Elish, scribed on clay tablets 4000 years before your book was written. The god you follow is named Enlil aka yahweh. Your book has been changed many times over history. The Enuma Elish has never been changed.