Purgatory

[Nice Dream]

Do Anglicans believe this teaching?

[gitlance]

We believe that at death, all people go into the realm of the dead to await the resurrection. With the exception of our Blessed Mother and perhaps a few others, nobody is currently in heaven yet, and nobody is currently in hell.

Christ has not yet come back to take us home with him, and there has yet to be the resurrection of the body.

In the mean time, we pray for those who have died, and may request their intercessions if we so desire.

[Nice Dream]

Ok i have another question linked to this: To the theif on the cross Jesus said that on that very day he would be with him in paradise, do you think he was one of the select few? Also, the asking for intercessions, how do you know who to ask? I mean how do you know which are the select few in heaven?

[gitlance]

Ok i have another question linked to this: To the theif on the cross Jesus said that on that very day he would be with him in paradise, do you think he was one of the select few? Also, the asking for intercessions, how do you know who to ask? I mean how do you know which are the select few in heaven?

The thief went exactly where Christ promised him he would go -- to paradise, which is another term for the realm of the dead. Where was Jesus that night after he died?

He descended to the realm of the dead.

"For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison..." 1 Peter 3:18-19

"Therefore it is said,
‘When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive;
he gave gifts to his people.’
9(When it says, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.)" Eph. 4:8-9

"I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth, and will behold all that sleep, and will enlighten all that hope in the Lord." Ecclesiasticus 24:45

In the Apostles Creed: "He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again."

We can request intercessions from any of the saints, as the primary task of people in the realm of the dead is prayer. However, I generally stick to asking for the prayers of Blessed Mary. On particular saints' days, I may ask St. Peter and St. Paul, as well as others, to pray for me.

I can show you an example of one such prayer, the Litany of Saints, in which petitions are made for the intercession of the saints. Would you care to see it?

[gtsecc]

Nice Dream,
We live between the 1st and 2nd coming of Christ.
We live in Chronos time.
Heaven is in Kyros time.
Have you heard this before?
That might be the reason for the confussion.

[Nice Dream]

Yeah, it would be interesting to see. I have another question though, the realm of the dead contains people who are due to eventually go to heaven or hell... is this correct? and you say 'We can request intercessions from any of the saints, as the primary task of people in the realm of the dead is prayer.' but wouldn't some of those in the realm of the dead not be praying, those who are making the choice to go to hell? Another question i have is that you refer to the realm of the dead as paradise but if both those who are due to eventually go to heaven AND HELL are there, would there not still be sin? So i can't see how it could be paradise.

[Nice Dream]

Nice Dream,
We live between the 1st and 2nd coming of Christ.
We live in Chronos time.
Heaven is in Kyros time.
Have you heard this before?
That might be the reason for the confussion.

No i have not heard of that before. In fact i don't know what the words Chronos or Kyros mean...:scratch:

[gtsecc]

We are in Chronos time - regular time.
God is in Kyros time - outside of normal time.
He can simultaniously be with Moses at the Burnign Bush, and with You, and with the Apsotles, and with the dead.

[gitlance]

Yeah, it would be interesting to see. I have another question though, the realm of the dead contains people who are due to eventually go to heaven or hell... is this correct? and you say 'We can request intercessions from any of the saints, as the primary task of people in the realm of the dead is prayer.' but wouldn't some of those in the realm of the dead not be praying, those who are making the choice to go to hell? Another question i have is that you refer to the realm of the dead as paradise but if both those who are due to eventually go to heaven AND HELL are there, would there not still be sin? So i can't see how it could be paradise.

Well, we are getting more into the realm of the speculative here, but I will give it a shot:

It is generally agreed upon that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a type of the realm of the dead. While both the rich man and Lazarus are in the same place, they are separated by a gulf that prevents them from passing over to each other. However, whether or not the unrighteous suffer in the afterlife is not known.

The righteous believers, however, will spend the afterlife being purified from their sins, so that they may finally enter into heaven at the last day. Remember, "no unclean thing can enter heaven".

When we request intercessions from the saints, we generally stick to those whom we know to have been solid Christians and lived exemplary lives. I certainly wouldn't request that Jeffrey Dahmer pray for me, of course.

[Nice Dream]

We are in Chronos time - regular time.
God is in Kyros time - outside of normal time.
He can simultaniously be with Moses at the Burnign Bush, and with You, and with the Apsotles, and with the dead.

Yeah, i believe God is outwith time personally, i agree with this. I don't see how this supports the teaching of purgatory though. I mean, purgatory seems to still be within the boundries of time from what i have heard, as purgatory is only a temporary situation until the time of Jesus return?

[Nice Dream]

Well, we are getting more into the realm of the speculative here, but I will give it a shot:

It is generally agreed upon that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a type of the realm of the dead. While both the rich man and Lazarus are in the same place, they are separated by a gulf that prevents them from passing over to each other. However, whether or not the unrighteous suffer in the afterlife is not known.

The righteous believers, however, will spend the afterlife being purified from their sins, so that they may finally enter into heaven at the last day. Remember, "no unclean thing can enter heaven".

When we request intercessions from the saints, we generally stick to those whom we know to have been solid Christians and lived exemplary lives. I certainly wouldn't request that Jeffrey Dahmer pray for me, of course.

Ok so what you are saying here is that there are perhaps two different states of purgatory for those going to heaven and those to hell, or maybe even that they both have a different perception of it according to their belief or lack of BUT it is not really known for sure what will happen?

Thanks for answering my questions, i haven't really learned anything about purgatory before so it's interesting.

[gitlance]

Yeah, i believe God is outwith time personally, i agree with this. I don't see how this supports the teaching of purgatory though. I mean, purgatory seems to still be within the boundries of time from what i have heard, as purgatory is only a temporary situation until the time of Jesus return?


The point he is making is that we don't exactly know all the details of the afterlife, but we do know what the Scriptures have taught us and what the Church has handed down to us.

Let me give you a quote from one of the early Christians, a bishop named Irenaeus. He wrote this about AD 180.

If, then, the Lord observed the law of the dead, that He might become the first-begotten from the dead, and tarried until the third day "in the lower parts of the earth;" then afterwards rising in the flesh, so that He even showed the print of the nails to His disciples, He thus ascended to the Father; -- [if all these things occurred, I say], how must these men not be put to confusion, who allege that "the lower parts" refer to this world of ours, but that their tuner man, leaving the body here, ascends into the super-celestial place? For as the Lord "went away in the midst of the shadow of death," where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up [into heaven], it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God. "For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master." As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight [to heaven], but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up [to heaven]; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this [privilege].

Here is another quote by Tertullian, another bishop who said this in about AD 200:

‘Are all souls then,’ you say, ‘in the realm of the underworld?’ Yes, whether you like it or not. And there are punishments there and refreshments. . . . Why cannot you suppose that the soul undergoes punishment or comfort in the underworld, in the interval while it awaits the judgement, either of punishment or reward, with a kind of anticipation? . . . Otherwise, what will happen in that interval? Shall we sleep? But souls cannot sleep. ... Or do you think that nothing happens there? . . . Surely it would be the height of injustice if in that place the souls of the wicked still prospered, and the good still failed of happiness? . . . Therefore since we understand that ‘prison,’ indicated in the Gospel, to be the underworld and interpret ‘die uttermost farthing’ as meaning every small sin which has to be expiated there in the interval before the resurrection, no one will doubt that the soul in the underworld pays some price, without prejudice to the fulfilment of the process at the resurrection, which also will be carried out through the medium of the flesh.

[gitlance]

Ok so what you are saying here is that there are perhaps two different states of purgatory for those going to heaven and those to hell, or maybe even that they both have a different perception of it according to their belief or lack of BUT it is not really known for sure what will happen?

Thanks for answering my questions, i haven't really learned anything about purgatory before so it's interesting.

Yes. There could be two realms within the underworld -- the righteous may very well be separate from the unrighteous.

[Naomi4Christ]

Do Anglicans believe this teaching?

There are two places we can go when we die - heaven and hell.

We reject the Romish doctrine of purgatory.

[gtsecc]

There are two places we can go when we die - heaven and hell.

We reject the Romish doctrine of purgatory.
Thr Romish doctrine is the teaching that you can pay money to get folsk out of Purgatory.
Most of the Church teaches that we could go someplace like a waiting room before heaven or Hell.

[Naomi4Christ]

Thr Romish doctrine is the teaching that you can pay money to get folsk out of Purgatory.
Most of the Church teaches that we could go someplace like a waiting room before heaven or Hell.

Now, where could one peruse this doctrine for oneself? Is there an official Anglican doctrine that says this?

[gitlance]

There are two places we can go when we die - heaven and hell.

We reject the Romish doctrine of purgatory.

Naomi, we don't teach the Roman doctrine of purgatory. Would you please read the above discussions?

We teach the doctrine of the afterlife as believed in the Church universal for the first 1200 years. It is still believed in the Eastern Church.

[gitlance]

Now, where could one peruse this doctrine for oneself? Is there an official Anglican doctrine that says this?

How about you read the Anglican divines, those first reformers of the English Church?

Or perhaps N.T. Wright, who is a fellow Brit.

Alternatively, you could read the BCP and note the language used when speaking of the dead. The BCP does not talk as if Christians have already reached heaven, but requests that God would "bring them" to his heavenly dwelling place "in the fullness of time".

[Naomi4Christ]

Naomi, we don't teach the Roman doctrine of purgatory. Would you please read the above discussions?

We teach the doctrine of the afterlife as believed in the Church universal for the first 1200 years. It is still believed in the Eastern Church.

Yeah, but I don't give a monkey's about the beliefs of the Eastern Church.

What official Anglican document is there that describes what we believe about purgatory?

[gitlance]

Yeah, but I don't give a monkey's about the beliefs of the Eastern Church.

What official Anglican document is there that describes what we believe about purgatory?

Well you should, because they have not changed in over 1000 years. They are exactly the same today as the were before the Great Schism.

And if you read the above posts you will see some preliminary suggestions for our doctrine concerning the matter.

[MommasaursRex]

Thr Romish doctrine is the teaching that you can pay money to get folsk out of Purgatory.
Most of the Church teaches that we could go someplace like a waiting room before heaven or Hell.


Okay, so I am confused here, so correct me if I am understand this wrong. After reading the thread, could it be said that Purgatory, and this "waiting room" are the same place?

Thanks!

[gitlance]

Okay, so I am confused here, so correct me if I am understand this wrong. After reading the thread, could it be said that Purgatory, and this "waiting room" are the same place?

Thanks!

Originally, yes. But the Roman Church has heavily modified the original teaching of "purgatory" that the early Church held from the beginning.

[MommasaursRex]

Originally, yes. But the Roman Church has heavily modified the original teaching of "purgatory" that the early Church held from the beginning.

Okay, then I wasn't too far off. <phew> I am almost afraid to ask questions sometimes, because I don't want to appear stupid. :blush:

So, how did the Catholic Church modify the teaching of "purgatory"? And do ya'll have another name for it, or do ya'll call it purgatory also?

Thanks!

[gitlance]

Okay, then I wasn't too far off. <phew> I am almost afraid to ask questions sometimes, because I don't want to appear stupid. :blush:

So, how did the Catholic Church modify the teaching of "purgatory"? And do ya'll have another name for it, or do ya'll call it purgatory also?

Thanks!

No one here will think you are stupid! Remember, the only stupid question is the one that isn't asked!

The Roman Church changed purgatory into a place where people go to suffer for a while during the "purging" of their sins, and then after they finish their proscribed time of suffering, they whisk off to heaven. For some time in the middle ages, Rome even allowed people to give money to the Church for the saving of people from purgatory; people could effectively buy others out of purgatory. It got to be pretty bad, and was one of the chief causes of the Reformation.

Anglicans have various terminology -- purgatory, the realm of the dead, the underworld, paradise, the afterlife, etc.

[MommasaursRex]

No one here will think you are stupid! Remember, the only stupid question is the one that isn't asked!

The Roman Church changed purgatory into a place where people go to suffer for a while during the "purging" of their sins, and then after they finish their proscribed time of suffering, they whisk off to heaven. For some time in the middle ages, Rome even allowed people to give money to the Church for the saving of people from purgatory; people could effectively buy others out of purgatory. It got to be pretty bad, and was one of the chief causes of the Reformation.

Anglicans have various terminology -- purgatory, the realm of the dead, the underworld, paradise, the afterlife, etc.

Oh, okay...so Anglicans, don't see purgatory or the realm of the dead as a place of suffering? I also wonder just what it is meant by suffering? Any thoughts on that, or maybe I should as a Catholic, that last question..^_^ sorry. Thanks again, for taking the time to answer my questions.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

My belief is a bit different. I believe upon death the souls of those who are in complete union with Christ go to be with him in Heaven. The souls of those who have not faith in Christ or who died without having perfect union with him depart to Hell, where they will be punished for their iniquity and purified until they have died to their old selves and may attain union with Christ in heaven.

[gitlance]

My belief is a bit different. I believe upon death the souls of those who are in complete union with Christ go to be with him in Heaven. The souls of those who have not faith in Christ or who died without having perfect union with him depart to Hell, where they will be punished for their iniquity and purified until they have died to their old selves and may attain union with Christ is heaven.

Could you support that from history, tradition, and scripture?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Could you support that from history, tradition, and scripture?

Sure. Though if you think Origen heterodox, I'm not sure if I should start with some of my Early Church Friends. ;)

[MommasaursRex]

My belief is a bit different. I believe upon death the souls of those who are in complete union with Christ go to be with him in Heaven. The souls of those who have not faith in Christ or who died without having perfect union with him depart to Hell, where they will be punished for their iniquity and purified until they have died to their old selves and may attain union with Christ is heaven.

So are you saying that people in Hell, can one day get out? I have never heard this taught before, the teaching of purgatory/realm of the dead, make much more sense.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

So are you saying that people in Hell, can one day get out? I have never heard this taught before, the teaching of purgatory/realm of the dead, make much more sense.

I have to disagree. If Hell is taught to be a place of punishment for one's sins, as it usually is, then it would only serve to follow one would be released from punishment after a due period of time and change. The very nature of punishment is correction of a fault.

While my belief in Universalism may seem a bit extreme -- I cannot honestly call Jesus the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world unless he actually does.

[gtsecc]

Yeah, but I don't give a monkey's about the beliefs of the Eastern Church.

What official Anglican document is there that describes what we believe about purgatory?
We were part of the them for over 1,000 years.
That is why we can and do look to them for doctrine.
If the Church held a belief for 1,000 years it is not going to change, or at least it shouldn't.

[gitlance]

I have to disagree. If Hell is taught to be a place of punishment for one's sins, as it usually is, then it would only serve to follow one would be released from punishment after a due period of time and change. The very nature of punishment is correction of a fault.

While my belief in Universalism may seem a bit extreme -- I cannot honestly call Jesus the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world unless he actually does.

And yet we have the life penalty here -- that person is never released from prison. The Scriptures, when mentioning hell, affirm the same. There is nowhere in Scripture that would affirm the notion that people can be freed from hell, and that is certainly not something the Church has ever taught. That, in fact, is close to the teachings of the universalists, which is indeed heresy according to the Church.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

And yet we have the life penalty here -- that person is never released from prison. The Scriptures, when mentioning hell, affirm the same. There is nowhere in Scripture that would affirm the notion that people can be freed from hell, and that is certainly not something the Church has ever taught. That, in fact, is close to the teachings of the universalists, which is indeed heresy according to the Church.

Life in Prison and the Death Penalty are means used to protect those who would otherwise be in danger if said persons were released. God, however, is the great Redeemer. He "makes all things new", that includes the sinful and wicked. They will no longer pose a threat, and they will no longer be as they once were -- because they will have been made anew by Christ.

The Doctrine of the Restitution of All Things was infact a belief of the early church, and one which diminished greatly due to the influence of the Church of Rome and Augustine.

[gitlance]

Life in Prison and the Death Penalty are means used to protect those who would otherwise be in danger if said persons were released. God, however, is the great Redeemer. He "makes all things new", that includes the sinful and wicked. They will no longer pose a threat, and they will no longer be as they once were -- because they will have been made anew by Christ.

The Doctrine of the Restitution of All Things was infact a belief of the early church, and one which diminished greatly due to the influence of the Church of Rome and Augustine.

The Doctrine of the Restitution of all things never meant everyone was going to heaven.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

The Doctrine of the Restitution of all things never meant everyone was going to heaven.

How do you figure this?

[gitlance]

How do you figure this?

Because the Fathers frequently spoke about hell. Not to mention, why argue against heresy if everyone is ultimately going to heaven anyway? Or, why bother with forgiving sins or administering the sacraments if everyone will (one way or another) go to heaven?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Because the Fathers frequently spoke about hell.

Yes. However, those who spoke of an eternal hell were not the majority in the beginning, and it wasn't until Augustine's influence that eternal damnation became so popular.

Not to mention, why argue against heresy if everyone is ultimately going to heaven anyway?

In order to preserve the whole of Christ's teaching, and the faith as once delivered to the saints.

Or, why bother with forgiving sins or administering the sacraments if everyone will (one way or another) go to heaven?

For the assurance of Christ's love and mercy, and namely out of obedience to His command to celebrate them.

[gitlance]

Yes. However, those who spoke of an eternal hell were not the majority in the beginning, and it wasn't until Augustine's influence that eternal damnation became so popular.



In order to preserve the whole of Christ's teaching, and the faith as once delivered to the saints.



For the assurance of Christ's love and mercy, and namely out of obedience to His command to celebrate them.

His commands make no sense if there's no consequence for not obeying them.

Why should we preserve orthodoxy if every path leads directly to God in the end? If every path leads to God, we are fools for following something as narrow and as difficult as Christianity. We should go off and belong to a much easier religion.

And again, do you ever see the Church reject Augustine's statements? No. In fact, the Church universal accepted them.

And again... who cares about assurance of Christ's love when we would apparently have eternal security whether we wanted it or not (from your perspective)?

[gitlance]

St. Ignatius: "Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him."

St. Clement: "But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’"

Justin Martyr: "No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments."

Irenaeus: "[God will] send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and blasphemous among men into everlasting fire."

and

"The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . [I]t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever."

Tertullian: "After the present age is ended he will judge his worshipers for a reward of eternal life and the godless for a fire equally perpetual and unending ... Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now, without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God, clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire, divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility."

Hippolytus: "Standing before [Christ’s] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: ‘Just is your judgment!’ And the righteousness of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them."

Cyprian: "An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life."

Cyril: "We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: for if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed. And righteously will God assign this portion to either company; for we do nothing without the body. We blaspheme with the mouth, and with the mouth we pray. With the body we commit fornication, and with the body we keep chastity. With the hand we rob, and by the hand we bestow alms; and the rest in like manner. Since then the body has been our minister in all things, it shall also share with us in the future the fruits of the past."

St. John: "Then I saw a great white throne and the one who sat on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. 13And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; 15and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." Rev. 20:11-15

Jesus Christ: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' 23Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'” Matt. 7:21-23

St. Augustine didn't start writing until close to AD 400. The latest quote I just posted for you was written around AD 250.

The hell there is no hell.

[stray bullet]

For some time in the middle ages, Rome even allowed people to give money to the Church for the saving of people from purgatory; people could effectively buy others out of purgatory. It got to be pretty bad, and was one of the chief causes of the Reformation.

Some additional info-
It should be noted that Rome, the Vatican, never gave permission for such an action. The selling of indulgences is an issue that, as far as I can see, clearly violated our understanding of purgatory. It was a gross abuse by priests that sadly, the Vatican did not address enough :(

[Mysterium_Fidei]

His commands make no sense if there's no consequence for not obeying them.

Why should we preserve orthodoxy if every path leads directly to God in the end? If every path leads to God, we are fools for following something as narrow and as difficult as Christianity. We should go off and belong to a much easier religion.

And again, do you ever see the Church reject Augustine's statements? No. In fact, the Church universal accepted them.

And again... who cares about assurance of Christ's love when we would apparently have eternal security whether we wanted it or not (from your perspective)?

I cannot honestly believe the Church of Christ derives all of it's authority from the existance of Hell and it's Princes.

Furthermore, it is foolish to say all paths lead to God. All do not. It is Christ who has freed Creation from the bonds of sin and death -- no other.

[gitlance]

I cannot honestly believe the Church of Christ derives all of it's authority from the existance of Hell and it's Princes.

Furthermore, it is foolish to say all paths lead to God. All do not. It is Christ who has freed Creation from the bonds of sin and death -- no other.

But you are effectively saying that one can be saved without trusting in Christ. Yes, no matter who is saved it will be through Christ -- but the chance of being saved without trusting him and upholding his faith is apparently rather slim when the Scriptures and the Fathers are read concerning this subject.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Also; While I do not have the time to trace down all the writings of the Fathers, (Indeed I have not read all the collections of their works) I should also like to quote a few , if it would be to your benefit:

"Mankind, being reclaimed from their sins..are to be subjected to Christ in the fullness of the dispensation instituted for the salvation of all" (Comm. in 1 Peter 3) -- Didymus

"Our Lord is the One who delivers man, and who heals the inventor of evil himself." St. Gregory of Nyssa (332-398), Catechetical Orations

"Abyss of hell is, indeed, the place of torment; but it is not eternal, nor did it exist in the original constitution of nature. It was made afterward, as a remedy for sinners, that it might cure them. And the punishments are holy, as they are remedial and salutary in their effect on transgressors; for they are inflicted not to preserve them in their wickedness but to make them cease from their wickedness. The anguish of their suffering compels them to break off their vices" (Lib. 1, ch. 32). Titus, Bishop of Bostra

"For the wicked are punished, not perpetual, but they are to be tormented for a certain brief period...according to the amount of malice in their works. They shall therefore suffer punishment for a short space, but immortal blessedness, having no end awaits them. The resurrection, therefore is regarded as a blessing not only to the good but also to the evil." Diodore

"He shews the reason of penalty, for the Lord, who loves men, chastises in order to heal, like a physician, that he may arrest the course of our sin" (Hom. in Ezech. ch. 6). Theodoret

I would also direct you to this article, which provides these quotes and several more: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/EarlyChristianView.html

[Mysterium_Fidei]

But you are effectively saying that one can be saved without trusting in Christ. Yes, no matter who is saved it will be through Christ -- but the chance of being saved without trusting him and upholding his faith is apparently rather slim when the Scriptures and the Fathers are read concerning this subject.

Are we saved by trusting in Christ -- or is it by His Grace? Numerous Fathers have come to interpret Scripture much to the contrary of how you have.

[gitlance]

Are we saved by trusting in Christ -- or is it by His Grace? Numerous Fathers have come to interpret Scripture much to the contrary of how you have.

And numerous fathers who are generally considered more reliable than some of the ones you mentioned have interpreted the faith differently from you.

What is ultimately important is the doctrine of the Church as it's been univerally accepted.

Go ask the Old Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and all the other apostolic Churches about hell.

You have to throw away the Scriptures and the accepted doctrine of 2000 years of Catholicism to accept something as dangerous as universalism. It is a heresy that will make people complacent, and halt any form of evangelism. There is no need to live a Christian life, no need to share the Faith with others, no need to glorify Christ if we will all share in His eternal glory. This belief is double predestination to the extreme! If God saves EVERYONE, even those who deliberately deny him, then he is unjust, brutal, and overbearing. I don't want to serve a God who forces his will on others. Free will implies that there are choices -- and with each choice comes a consequence. We must "work out our salvation" through Christ and his Church.

God is indeed a God of love, but he is also a God of justice.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

And numerous fathers who are generally considered more reliable than some of the ones you mentioned have interpreted the faith differently from you.

What is ultimately important is the doctrine of the Church as it's been univerally accepted.

I respectfully disagree.


Go ask the Old Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and all the other apostolic Churches about hell.

I could also ask the Baptists, the Pentecostals, and the Presbyterians while I'm at it. Age does not beget infallibility.



You have to throw away the Scriptures and the accepted doctrine of 2000 years of Catholicism to accept something as dangerous as universalism. It is a heresy that will make people complacent, and halt any form of evangelism. There is no need to live a Christian life, no need to share the Faith with others, no need to glorify Christ if we will all share in His eternal glory. This belief is double predestination to the extreme! If God saves EVERYONE, even those who deliberately deny him, then he is unjust, brutal, and overbearing. I don't want to serve a God who forces his will on others. Free will implies that there are choices -- and with each choice comes a consequence. We must "work out our salvation" through Christ and his Church.

This is incorrect, and a misrepresentation.

If anything, Universalism is a joyous doctrine that spawns Evangelism. Who wouldn't want to share the Good News that Christ has redeemed his fallen Creation with others?

If the only reason a person is living a Christian life is out of fear of hell -- they need to seriously reconsider their faith. I live my life as a Christian because the Lord has died for my sins, and the sins of the whole world -- not out of fear of some fallicious and cruel punishment by an equally fallicious and cruel deity.

I cannot believe you would call a God who went to death in order to save his children cruel. If anything is cruel, it is a god with the power to redeem all souls but refuses to do so.

[gitlance]

I respectfully disagree.



I could also ask the Baptists, the Pentecostals, and the Presbyterians while I'm at it. Age does not beget infallibility.





This is incorrect, and a misrepresentation.

If anything, Universalism is a joyous doctrine that spawns Evangelism. Who wouldn't want to share the Good News that Christ has redeemed his fallen Creation with others?

If the only reason a person is living a Christian life is out of fear of hell -- they need to seriously reconsider their faith. I live my life as a Christian because the Lord has died for my sins, and the sins of the whole world -- not out of fear of some fallicious and cruel punishment by an equally fallicious and cruel deity.

I cannot believe you would call a God who went to death in order to save his children cruel. If anything is cruel, it is a god with the power to redeem all souls but refuses to do so.

Why would God save someone who doesn't want to be saved?

That is injustice, manipulation, and the work of a cruel deity. I would rather serve a God who gives me the choice to follow him, rather than serve a God who there is no point in serving since he will save me anyway.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Why would God save someone who doesn't want to be saved?

That is injustice, manipulation, and the work of a cruel deity. I would rather serve a God who gives me the choice to follow him, rather than serve a God who there is no point in serving since he will save me anyway.

There is no freedom in the belief in an eternal hell. It is either "Love Me or burn forever", to come to God because of that is a perversion of one's free will.

If a man were to seize you, hold a gun to your head, and demand you become his friend on threat of shooting it is only logical you should obey the madman, but not because you love or respect him -- it is out of fear for your life. This same man then proceeds to murder everyone who chooses to reject him.

It is not manipulation to rescue one's child.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

It is unjust of a God to allow sin to affect every member of a race, to have a Universal Curse -- but then to provide only a limited cure. The Sin of Adam must be dissolved by the Sacrafice of Christ or it is an inaffective and worthless sacrafice -- no better than the blood of beasts.

The cure must equal and surpass the sickness.

[Thomas2618]

Christ's one perfect sacrifice is a gift given to everybody, yes. However, one MUST accept the gift to receive it. And Jesus laid out specifically the ways in which we go about accepting His Gift to us. If His sacrifice will eventually save every person anyway, then there is no reason for Him to have gone around teaching everyone how to accept His Gift...He might as well have only been born...lived a perfect life...then died and resurrected without all the pesky middle part that he had to go through if everyone will be saved by it anyway. We are only saved through Christ's sacrifice: by reconnecting to God through Jesus by becoming a part of his very Body.

[gitlance]

I could also ask the Baptists, the Pentecostals, and the Presbyterians while I'm at it. Age does not beget infallibility.




Except they have never held the Catholic faith. Let's ask those who have upheld the Catholic faith for thousands of years. Age may not beget infallibility, but is does beget wisdom.

Your beliefs contradict those of the Church.

Look at these prayers from the BCP:

Almighty God, with whom still live the spirits of those who die in the Lord, and with whom the souls of the faithful are in joy and felicity: We give you heartfelt thanks for the good examples of all your servants, who, having finished their course in faith, now find rest and refreshment. May we, with all who have died in the true faith of your holy Name, have perfect fulfillment and bliss in your eternal and everlasting glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Grant that all who have been baptized into Christ's death and resurrection may die to sin and rise to newness of life, and that through the grave and gate of death we may pass with him to our joyful resurrection.

Grant us, with all who have died in the hope of the resurrection, to have our consummation and bliss in thy eternal and everlasting glory, and with Blessed Mary and all thy saints, to receive the crown of life which thou dost promise to all who share in the victory of thy Son Jesus Christ...

From all evil and wickedness; from sin; from the crafts and assaults of the devil; and from everlasting damnation, Good Lord deliver us.

Almighty and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made and dost forgive the sins of all those who are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord...

Almighty God ... mercifully grant that we, walking in the way of the cross, may find it none other than the way of life and peace; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord ...

I could go on and on. Do you see the stipulations constantly put on salvation? Christ has done his part, now we must do ours. Universalism, no matter what you may think, is against the plain teaching of your Church. And if you can't obey the BCP, then for heaven's sake, why are you Anglican? If praying shapes believing, then you must be skipping a lot of prayers in order to justify universalism in your mind.

The BCP, the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Councils, and the Creeds support the doctrine of hell.

Now, I am not saying by any means that I have some strange desire to see people go there, but it is the clear teaching of the Church, and I must accept the fact that hell is real and somebody will be there. Exactly who is up to God, but we have been given enough guidelines to know how to at least avoid hell.

[gitlance]

There is no freedom in the belief in an eternal hell. It is either "Love Me or burn forever", to come to God because of that is a perversion of one's free will.

If a man were to seize you, hold a gun to your head, and demand you become his friend on threat of shooting it is only logical you should obey the madman, but not because you love or respect him -- it is out of fear for your life. This same man then proceeds to murder everyone who chooses to reject him.

It is not manipulation to rescue one's child.

And yet somehow it isn't manipulation to make a God-hating atheist go to heaven? If I hated God, the LAST place I would want to be for eternity is with him!

God doesn't make any more demands from us than he was willing to obey himself. He suffered the most horrifying death for us... we should expect no less for ourselves. "No servant is greater than his master."

You act as if God has some right to save us. Salvation is a process that involves becoming like him -- a process that we must live out and work for through God's grace. Why would someone who hates him and denies him want to become like him? That makes no sense.

[Thomas2618]

If the only reason a person is living a Christian life is out of fear of hell -- they need to seriously reconsider their faith.

We are not saying that you are to live you life only to avoid hell. Quite the contrary. We are saying that there is eternal heaven to gain. The reason we try to live for Christ is to gain his promise of His Eternal Kingdom when he returns. But He has only promised His Kingdom to those who follow him. Those that lay down their lives for Him in order to gain it in Him. Jesus said Himself that the way to heaven is narrow. It is only through becoming a part of Christ's Body that we are able to share in His Eternal Kingdom. Also, there is only reason to strive for heaven if there is an alternative.

[Naomi4Christ]

Except they have never held the Catholic faith.

Really? What creeds do these churches use?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Except they have never held the Catholic faith. Let's ask those who have upheld the Catholic faith for thousands of years. Age may not beget infallibility, but is does beget wisdom.

Your beliefs contradict those of the Church.

Look at these prayers from the BCP:













I could go on and on. Do you see the stipulations constantly put on salvation? Christ has done his part, now we must do ours. Universalism, no matter what you may think, is against the plain teaching of your Church. And if you can't obey the BCP, then for heaven's sake, why are you Anglican? If praying shapes believing, then you must be skipping a lot of prayers in order to justify universalism in your mind.

The BCP, the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Councils, and the Creeds support the doctrine of hell.

Now, I am not saying by any means that I have some strange desire to see people go there, but it is the clear teaching of the Church, and I must accept the fact that hell is real and somebody will be there. Exactly who is up to God, but we have been given enough guidelines to know how to at least avoid hell.

I do not see the quotes you have provided from the BCP as contrary to Universalism.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

And yet somehow it isn't manipulation to make a God-hating atheist go to heaven? If I hated God, the LAST place I would want to be for eternity is with him!

God doesn't make any more demands from us than he was willing to obey himself. He suffered the most horrifying death for us... we should expect no less for ourselves. "No servant is greater than his master."

You act as if God has some right to save us. Salvation is a process that involves becoming like him -- a process that we must live out and work for through God's grace. Why would someone who hates him and denies him want to become like him? That makes no sense.

God does, indeed, have a right and obligation to save His Creation. After the punishments and purification of hell, those opposed to God will come to see his love and then rejoice in his Glory.

No mortal man, nor immortal spirit -- no demon, angel, or archangel -- can forever resist the Love of God. It is piercing, like an arrow.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Really? What creeds do these churches use?

I had assumed all baptized Christians were part of the Catholic Church. Apostolic Succession is another matter.

[karen freeinchristman]

After the punishments and purification of hell, those opposed to God will come to see his love and then rejoice in his Glory.

A thought came to mind when reading the above sentence.
I wonder what the punishments will be? And what will the purification be?
When we are punished for things here in this world, whether it is a child getting punished by taking away privileges or getting grounded, or whether it is an adult getting punished for breaking the law and having to go to prison, or pay a fine of some sort... oftentimes this doesn't really correct the behaviour of the person, does it? We often repeat our offences. We often develop an even greater desire for rebellion against authority when we are punished. I wonder how God will punish people and yet it will still lead people to acknowledge his love? Just a thought. I know we don't have the answer.

[gitlance]

Really? What creeds do these churches use?

Baptists and Pentecostals don't use any. Presbyterians may claim allegiance to the Nicene Creed, but if you read the articles of their faith, you will see many contradictions between calvinism and the historic Catholic faith as outlined in the creeds.

Thanks for proving my point.

[gitlance]

I do not see the quotes you have provided from the BCP as contrary to Universalism.

Perhaps you should read them again, and notice that we are expecting eternal life *in light* of certain things we have done and believed. There is absolutely no need for the Church to preach repentance, to grant absolution, to feed us with Christ's Body and Blood, to evangelize, to preserve doctrine, etc, if all people will ultimately be saved through no decision of their own.

Your argument has no basis in logic, scripture, or tradition. If you wanna find me an authoritative source in the Church (the BCP, the Creeds, the 7 Councils, the Scriptures) that undoubtedly upholds and affirms universalism, then go right ahead.

I have shown you the BCP, I have shown you evidence from the Fathers, I have given you some scripture. Now, let me show you one of the Creeds that our Church still upholds:



WHOSOEVER WILL BE SAVED,
before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,
neither confounding the Persons,
nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father,
another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty,
and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three
Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge
every Person by himself to be both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say,
There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other;
none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons
are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also
believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess,
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
and Man of the substance of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man,
of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the
Father, as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and Man,
yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead
into flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance,
but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul
and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,
rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
God Almighty, from whence he will come
to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies
and shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life
everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully,
he cannot be saved.

I don't see universalism being taught by your Church.

[gitlance]

God does, indeed, have a right and obligation to save His Creation. After the punishments and purification of hell, those opposed to God will come to see his love and then rejoice in his Glory.

No mortal man, nor immortal spirit -- no demon, angel, or archangel -- can forever resist the Love of God. It is piercing, like an arrow.

Which is yet another way of saying that our free will is not truly free, and that God is manipulative by preventing people from being able to resist his love.

[gitlance]

A thought came to mind when reading the above sentence.
I wonder what the punishments will be? And what will the purification be?
When we are punished for things here in this world, whether it is a child getting punished by taking away privileges or getting grounded, or whether it is an adult getting punished for breaking the law and having to go to prison, or pay a fine of some sort... oftentimes this doesn't really correct the behaviour of the person, does it? We often repeat our offences. We often develop an even greater desire for rebellion against authority when we are punished. I wonder how God will punish people and yet it will still lead people to acknowledge his love? Just a thought. I know we don't have the answer.

You wonder correctly. Those who have chosen to deny God will not magically fall for him after eons of punishment. It is a ridiculous assertion, and one unfounded on Scripture, history, tradition, the Church, the Creeds, the Councils, etc, etc, etc.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Which is yet another way of saying that our free will is not truly free, and that God is manipulative by preventing people from being able to resist his love.

I disagree. The idea of Universalism is that a time will come when every intelligent creature will see the love of God and turn to him because of His Goodness, with their free will. Even the wicked.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

You wonder correctly. Those who have chosen to deny God will not magically fall for him after eons of punishment. It is a ridiculous assertion, and one unfounded on Scripture, history, tradition, the Church, the Creeds, the Councils, etc, etc, etc.

Again, I must respectfully disagree. Rebellion against God is a fault in human nature, not a inherent gift. It is the result of Adam's sin.

[gitlance]

I disagree. The idea of Universalism is that a time will come when every intelligent creature will see the love of God and turn to him because of His Goodness, with their free will. Even the wicked.

But you said that would be the result of God's love being so strong that they couldn't make any other decision. Free will means there is always the choice to make another decision. For God's love to be so strong that nobody could reject it is to say that it is so strong that it overrides our free will.

[pmcleanj]

I had assumed all baptized Christians were part of the Catholic Church. Apostolic Succession is another matter.
This is very close to the historic Anglican understanding, which is that the Church exists where the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments are duly administered.

The crux comes, of course, in discerning what due administration of the Sacraments consists of, and in discerning what constitutes preaching the "pure Word of God".

But our historic position is that: substance of preaching and Sacrament, not denominational affiliation, is what identifies the Catholic Church.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

God's love to be so strong that nobody could reject it is to say that it is so strong that it overrides our free will.

It is to say, rather, that God is omnipotent.

[gitlance]

Again, I must respectfully disagree. Rebellion against God is a fault in human nature, not a inherent gift. It is the result of Adam's sin.

To say that rebellion is a fault in our nature is to say that humans were not created "good" as the Scriptures testify. Rebellion is the result of our misusing of the free will God gave us. With every decision comes a consequence. Granted, I don't know how anybody in their right mind would want to reject God, but some people do -- that is a fact of life. There are people who absolutely hate God! The last thing they want is to be with God -- and so God has given them the choice to not be with him. God isn't making anyone go to hell... he is just sending them where they want to go: away from him.

[gitlance]

It is to say, rather, that God is omnipotent.

Then free will is a ploy and a lie. God gave us the power to choose or deny him -- if he is going to force all of us to be with him in the end, then we don't have free will and God and the Scriptures have lied.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

It overrides the disease, the sin, that would cause us to turn away from Him in the first place. Choosing anything other than God is not spritually natural, anyway. That's the whole idea of sin.

[gitlance]

It overrides the disease, the sin, that would cause us to turn away from Him in the first place. Choosing anything other than God is not spritually natural, anyway. That's the whole idea of sin.

Sin may not be natural, but it is real. And reality comes with consequences. Jesus came so that those who choose to live as God wishes us to live could have his power to do so.

But that is also to say that those who choose not to live as God desires us to live have the power to choose not to.

I wish that you would show me something that has been universally considered authoritative in the Church that proves it is a Christian/Catholic doctrine. Afterall, if it is indeed a genuinely Christian doctrine that has been upheld by the Church, then we have wasted 2000 years defending and upholding dogma. There's no point to it if in the end we have no choice anyway.

Remember, not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but only those who "do the will of my Father in heaven."

Universalism leads to the notion that there are no absolutes which we must hold to, for all will be forgiven and forgotten in the future. There are no standards of decency which are necessary to uphold, because God will force us to conform to them in the end anyway. We may as well "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

[pmcleanj]

We believe that at death, all people go into the realm of the dead to await the resurrection. With the exception of our Blessed Mother and perhaps a few others, nobody is currently in heaven yet, and nobody is currently in hell.

Christ has not yet come back to take us home with him, and there has yet to be the resurrection of the body.

In the mean time, we pray for those who have died, and may request their intercessions if we so desire.

It might be more accurate to state that we believe, with Scripture, that "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven" and that "For now we see through a glass, darkly" -- so that frankly, we don't know.

Outside of Scripture, and Articles 3 and 22, no formal Anglican doctrinal statement about the afterlife exists to dictate for us what we must believe, we are free in the Anglican tradition, as the early Church fathers were, to investigate Scripture and speculate on the subject. Since we have no empirical evidence of what the afterlife is like, and since the clues given in Scripture can support different speculation about the afterlife, our speculation (like that of the early Church fathers) inevitably yields varying conclusions.

Fortunately, part of Anglican tradition is that we are willing to accept uncertainty about such specifics, having faith in the certainty that God our Father will care for us and be merciful to us for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Sin may not be natural, but it is real. And reality comes with consequences. Jesus came so that those who choose to live as God wishes us to live could have his power to do so. But that is also to say that those who choose not to live as God desires us to live have the power to choose not to.

The wages of sin are death. Christ destroyed the power of death and sin.







I wish that you would show me something that has been universally considered authoritative in the Church that proves it is a Christian/Catholic doctrine. Afterall, if it is indeed a genuinely Christian doctrine that has been upheld by the Church, then we have wasted 2000 years defending and upholding dogma. There's no point to it if in the end we have no choice anyway.

No dogma of the church has gained Universal acceptance. I should remind you Arianism prevailed for quite some time as 'near universal' before it was torn down.



Remember, not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but only those who "do the will of my Father in heaven."

I love this verse, but feel you are wrongly interpreting it.

Universalism leads to the notion that there are no absolutes which we must hold to, for all will be forgiven and forgotten in the future. There are no standards of decency which are necessary to uphold, because God will force us to conform to them in the end anyway. We may as well "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

Incorrect. We should turn to the God who has paid so great a price to redeem us.

[gitlance]

The wages of sin are death. Christ destroyed the power of death and sin.

Paul wrote that in full knowledge that Christ had destroyed the power of sin and death... yet Paul also knew that not all would accept Christ's victory.








No dogma of the church has gained Universal acceptance. I should remind you Arianism prevailed for quite some time as 'near universal' before it was torn down.

Yes, plenty of dogmas have gained universal acceptance in the Catholic church: the Trinity, the natures of Christ, the Creeds, the Apostolic Succession, the Scriptures, etc. Notice that even during the arian controversy, the Nicene council still stood, and was still authoritatively proclaiming the truth, even if some were choosing to disobey it.





I love this verse, but feel you are wrongly interpreting it.

Then please do enlighten me on another translation that has Catholic support.



Incorrect. We should turn to the God who has paid so great a price to redeem us.

You just said we "should turn to the God who has paid so great a price to redeem us." YES! WE SHOULD! But as I'm sure you know just from watching TV, there are many who don't. Where does God ever say that he is going to force all to turn to him? If he is going to force us all to turn to him in the end, there is no need for us to turn to him now.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Paul wrote that in full knowledge that Christ had destroyed the power of sin and death... yet Paul also knew that not all would accept Christ's victory.








Yes, plenty of dogmas have gained universal acceptance in the Catholic church: the Trinity, the natures of Christ, the Creeds, the Apostolic Succession, the Scriptures, etc. Notice that even during the arian controversy, the Nicene council still stood, and was still authoritatively proclaiming the truth, even if some were choosing to disobey it.






Then please do enlighten me on another translation that has Catholic support.




You just said we "should turn to the God who has paid so great a price to redeem us." YES! WE SHOULD! But as I'm sure you know just from watching TV, there are many who don't. Where does God ever say that he is going to force all to turn to him? If he is going to force us all to turn to him in the end, there is no need for us to turn to him now.

Even the dogma of the Trinity is debated amoung those who claim the banner of Christianity. Their Catholicity and their validity via Apostolic Succession are clearly a matters of dispute, but it is not Succesion I am now writting about.

When Our Lord says "Not all who say to me Lord, Lord..." he is admonishing those those who claim to be Christians and servants of the God of Abraham from not doing the will of His Father -- helping the poor, the widows, and the suffering. Forgiving those who sin against you, and showing compassion to the broken. Remember, Jesus also preaced "The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand!", those who merely boast in knowing the Lord and performing miracles and not living in, or forwarding, his coming kingdom.

If taken literally this is along the same lines as "Call no man Father"

[gitlance]

Even the dogma of the Trinity is debated amoung those who claim the banner of Christianity. Their Catholicity and their validity via Apostolic Succession are clearly a matters of dispute, but it is not Succesion I am now writting about.

The Dogma of the Trinity has not been debated within Catholicism since the Council of Constantinople, when the canon of the Creed was completed. That council pronounced anathemas against anyone who disagree with the Church's teachings on the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the hypostatic union, etc. Those are binding teachings which all men must accept. Why declare such a thing if we will all be saved in the end, in which case doctrine would be irrelevant?

Again, there is no need for Catholicity or valid succession at all if we do not need to follow Catholic Christianity in order to be saved. We may as well do whatever we desire, for in the end it will "all work out ok".



When Our Lord says "Not all who say to me Lord, Lord..." he is admonishing those those who claim to be Christians and servants of the God of Abraham from not doing the will of His Father -- helping the poor, the widows, and the suffering. Forgiving those who sin against you, and showing compassion to the broken. Remember, Jesus also preaced "The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand!", those who merely boast in knowing the Lord and performing miracles and not living in, or forwarding, his coming kingdom.

And yet those people saying "Lord, Lord" where indeed working miracles! Do you not think that miracles are meritorious and beneficial to the recepients of them? I believe they are. Christ worked miracles. Yet, it is apparent that these people lacked something: they lacked obedience to the will of the Father. What is the will of the Father?

"For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Everyone that SEES the Son AND believes in him should have eternal life. If you do not believe in the Son, where does Jesus allow for the possibility of eternal life?

Remember John 3:16? "For God so loved the world he sent his only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

Not only does this Scripture say that you must believe in Christ to have eternal life, but it also states that there is the possibility of perishing. For, if one could ultimately never parish, it would be silly for John to write as if someone could.

Belief in Jesus is seen as the first requirement to salvation.

Jesus himself gave us another requirement to salvation in John 6: the Eucharist. You should know from your studies that this passage has been interpreted historically by the Church to be a eucharistic passage. I quote: "hen they said to him, ‘What must we do to perform the works of God?’ 29Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ ... And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.’ ... So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me."

Jesus re-emphasizes the need for faith, but he goes on to say that in addition to faith, we must EAT His body and blood! He said that those who don't have no life in them! My brother, if you have no life in you, how do you expect to go to heaven? Jesus would not command such a thing, nor speak in such strong language, if indeed all will ultimately be saved through no real choice of their own in the end.

In Matt 26, Jesus commands his Apostles to make disciples of all nations, and to baptize them. Why make disciples and baptize if we will all be saved? It is futile, and a waste of time. There is no need to strive to live a moral life if we will be saved regardless. There are no consequences for sin in universalism. That means that an unrepentant, atheistic Hitler will be in heaven one day. Go tell your Jewish friends that and see what they say! God will work justice, and pay back to every man his due. "For it is mine to judge, says the Lord, I will avenge."

There is no need for a judgment if we will all go to heaven.

St. James writes in the 2nd chapter of his epistle that not only must we have faith, but we must also have works that prove that faith is genuine. Why have works to prove a faith if God will override our free will and force us to live with him for eternity. Paul was right when he said that we should just then "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." I don't know about you, but my striving to live for Christ and His Church -- and to bring others to the knowledge of him -- is futile if all will be saved anyway; so then, I may as well quit being a Christian. Why waste my life on something that I will have no choice over in the end?

Revelation 20 speaks very clearly of those whose names were written in the book of life, as well as those whose weren't. Why would John say that some peoples' names were not written in the book of life (therefore being cast into the lake of fire) if indeed all were to be saved in the end? It makes no sense.

Universalism leads to the precarious position of there being no need for religion. Why live a good life of self-sacrifice if all will be saved regardless? There is no need to. This type of thinking leads to moral relativism and egotism.

Why would Christ have descended to the place of the dead (of which the Scriptures and the Creeds testify) in order to preach to the spirits in prison there if indeed all will ultimately come to heaven in the end? It seems to me that that would have been a waste of his time.

And yet, through all of this, we have no scriptural, historical, traditional, conciliar, or credal proof that the Church ever accepted, tolerated, or taught such a doctrine as universalism. This is a doctrine best left to the deists, the unitarians, the Mormons, and the like. It has no place in Catholic theology.

:crossrc:

[Mysterium_Fidei]

The Dogma of the Trinity has not been debated within Catholicism since the Council of Constantinople, when the canon of the Creed was completed. That council pronounced anathemas against anyone who disagree with the Church's teachings on the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the hypostatic union, etc. Those are binding teachings which all men must accept. Why declare such a thing if we will all be saved in the end, in which case doctrine would be irrelevant?


I am speaking of those who claim Christianity as a whole. Not everyone accepts your definition of Catholicism. The importance of declaring those dogmas and doctrines is so Christians may preserve in the faith as once delivered to the saints.



Again, there is no need for Catholicity or valid succession at all if we do not need to follow Catholic Christianity in order to be saved. We may as well do whatever we desire, for in the end it will "all work out ok".


All men are called to the Church. We have an obligation to follow his teachings because of his Sacrafice for us -- those who do not will in the end be saved, but it is only after much testing and purification. The Lord God has saved His Creation. He will administer the cure that Calvary won.





And yet those people saying "Lord, Lord" where indeed working miracles! Do you not think that miracles are meritorious and beneficial to the recepients of them? I believe they are. Christ worked miracles. Yet, it is apparent that these people lacked something: they lacked obedience to the will of the Father. What is the will of the Father?

You've answered that yourself. See below.


"For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Everyone that SEES the Son AND believes in him should have eternal life. If you do not believe in the Son, where does Jesus allow for the possibility of eternal life?



Where does he not seem to allow for the salvation of others?


Remember John 3:16? "For God so loved the world he sent his only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

Not only does this Scripture say that you must believe in Christ to have eternal life, but it also states that there is the possibility of perishing. For, if one could ultimately never parish, it would be silly for John to write as if someone could.
Belief in Jesus is seen as the first requirement to salvation.


The Scripture doesn't say you must believe in anyone -- it says whoever does will not perish. I don't really see any possibility of perishing here.



Jesus himself gave us another requirement to salvation in John 6: the Eucharist. You should know from your studies that this passage has been interpreted historically by the Church to be a eucharistic passage. I quote: "hen they said to him, ‘What must we do to perform the works of God?’ 29Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ ... And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.’ ... So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me."

Jesus re-emphasizes the need for faith, but he goes on to say that in addition to faith, we must EAT His body and blood! He said that those who don't have no life in them! My brother, if you have no life in you, how do you expect to go to heaven? Jesus would not command such a thing, nor speak in such strong language, if indeed all will ultimately be saved through no real choice of their own in the end.
Many scholars, modern and ancient, do not see this as a reference to the Eucharist. However, even when interpreting it Eucharisticly (as I do), it merely says those who have not received the Eucharist have no life in them. I agree, they have been spritually starved.


In Matt 26, Jesus commands his Apostles to make disciples of all nations, and to baptize them. Why make disciples and baptize if we will all be saved? It is futile, and a waste of time. There is no need to strive to live a moral life if we will be saved regardless. There are no consequences for sin in universalism. That means that an unrepentant, atheistic Hitler will be in heaven one day. Go tell your Jewish friends that and see what they say! God will work justice, and pay back to every man his due. "For it is mine to judge, says the Lord, I will avenge."

There is no need for a judgment if we will all go to heaven.


None of the Apostles were baptized with water, in the Name of the Trinity.
Nor is Christianity a waste of time if we don't have people rotting in hell forever. It is out of love and thanksgiving we follow Christ, not fear.



St. James writes in the 2nd chapter of his epistle that not only must we have faith, but we must also have works that prove that faith is genuine. Why have works to prove a faith if God will override our free will and force us to live with him for eternity. Paul was right when he said that we should just then "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." I don't know about you, but my striving to live for Christ and His Church -- and to bring others to the knowledge of him -- is futile if all will be saved anyway; so then, I may as well quit being a Christian. Why waste my life on something that I will have no choice over in the end?


I'm sorry that you find it so important to Christianity's validity to have an eternal hell. However, James say no more than our faith is dead without works, and it cannot justify us. Nothing except God can make a man just before God.

My Christian life is not futile if God redeems His creation.



Revelation 20 speaks very clearly of those whose names were written in the book of life, as well as those whose weren't. Why would John say that some peoples' names were not written in the book of life (therefore being cast into the lake of fire) if indeed all were to be saved in the end? It makes no sense.


All people who have lived are in the book of life. Thus the name.
"Death and Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire"



Universalism leads to the precarious position of there being no need for religion. Why live a good life of self-sacrifice if all will be saved regardless? There is no need to. This type of thinking leads to moral relativism and egotism.

I don't know about others; But I follow Christ because he loves me. He loved me so much he gave his life for me and his whole Creation. I follow him because he calls me to, not because a place of Eternal Damnation is around every corner.

I find it egotistic that some are offended of the possibility of the Lord redeeming others, and giving them the same reward as those who worked hard for him all their lives. Sounds an awful lot like the parable:


‘For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace; and he said to them, “You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.” So they went. When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same. And about five o’clock he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, “Why are you standing here idle all day?” They said to him, “Because no one has hired us.” He said to them, “You also go into the vineyard.” When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, “Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.” When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage. And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, saying, “These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.” But he replied to one of them, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?” So the last will be first, and the first will be last.’




Why would Christ have descended to the place of the dead (of which the Scriptures and the Creeds testify) in order to preach to the spirits in prison there if indeed all will ultimately come to heaven in the end? It seems to me that that would have been a waste of his time.

In descending to the dead he ransomed every soul there and brought them with him. Many Eastern Christians call this the "Harrowing of Hell".


And yet, through all of this, we have no scriptural, historical, traditional, conciliar, or credal proof that the Church ever accepted, tolerated, or taught such a doctrine as universalism. This is a doctrine best left to the deists, the unitarians, the Mormons, and the like. It has no place in Catholic theology.


Again, I disagree. Very much so.

[gitlance]

I am speaking of those who claim Christianity as a whole. Not everyone accepts your definition of Catholicism. The importance of declaring those dogmas and doctrines is so Christians may preserve in the faith as once delivered to the saints.


All men are called to the Church. We have an obligation to follow his teachings because of his Sacrafice for us -- those who do not will in the end be saved, but it is only after much testing and purification. The Lord God has saved His Creation. He will administer the cure that Calvary won.

You have contradicted yourself. We have no obligations of obedience if there are no consequences for disobedience. You have yet to show me in Scripture, the Councils, the Creeds, or the like where this doctrine is expounded. Surely you don't believe it just because it sounds pleasing to the ear...?


The Scripture doesn't say you must believe in anyone -- it says whoever does will not perish. I don't really see any possibility of perishing here.

But it is by believing in Christ that we are given eternal life. If there wasn't the consequence of perishing, then the Scriptures would not say mention it.





None of the Apostles were baptized with water, in the Name of the Trinity.
Nor is Christianity a waste of time if we don't have people rotting in hell forever. It is out of love and thanksgiving we follow Christ, not fear.

Fallacy of appealing to ignorance. We have more than enough reason to believe from history that the apostles received the baptism of John.


All people who have lived are in the book of life. Thus the name.
"Death and Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire"

Except Revelation goes on to say that "those whose names were not found in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire" in addition to death and hades. If there weren't any people being cast into the lake of fire, it would be fallacious for John to say there were.



In descending to the dead he ransomed every soul there and brought them with him. Many Eastern Christians call this the "Harrowing of Hell".

The Eastern Church does not teach that Christ took people out of the realm of the dead. All people are still there, waiting for the resurrection.

In John 5, Jesus mentions two aspects of the resurrection: the resurrection to life, and the resurrection to damnation. Is Jesus lying to us here?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

You have contradicted yourself. We have no obligations of obedience if there are no consequences for disobedience. You have yet to show me in Scripture, the Councils, the Creeds, or the like where this doctrine is expounded. Surely you don't believe it just because it sounds pleasing to the ear...?

We are not obliged because of consequence, but because of Love. I Love Him because He first loved me. I could give you numerous quotes from Scripture, but rather than post them all here I refer you to this article:
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/EarlyChristianView.html

Scroll down to the bottom, there should be about 75 Scipture quotes for you to look at.



But it is by believing in Christ that we are given eternal life. If there wasn't the consequence of perishing, then the Scriptures would not say mention it.


There are consequences, clearly. But are they everlasting? I think not, and I do not think the Scriptures mention them.




Fallacy of appealing to ignorance. We have more than enough reason to believe from history that the apostles received the baptism of John.

I would certainly like to see where you get this information. I was requesting it on another thread. :)


Except Revelation goes on to say that "those whose names were not found in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire" in addition to death and hades. If there weren't any people being cast into the lake of fire, it would be fallacious for John to say there were.

Even fire cannot destroy something; it can only change it's state. Reform it.




The Eastern Church does not teach that Christ took people out of the realm of the dead. All people are still there, waiting for the resurrection.

In John 5, Jesus mentions two aspects of the resurrection: the resurrection to life, and the resurrection to damnation. Is Jesus lying to us here?

While this is Roman in source, I have seen a plentitude of icons of this scene:

Harrowing of Hell

Catholic Encyclopedia



This is the Old English and Middle English term for the triumphant descent of Christ into hell (or Hades) between the time of His Crucifixion and His Resurrection, when, according to Christian belief, He brought salvation to the souls held captive there since the beginning of the world. According to the "New English Dictionary" the word Harrowing in the above connection first occurs in Aelfric's homilies, about A.D. 1000; but, long before this, the descent into hell had been related in the Old English poems connected with the name of Caedmon and Cynewulf. Writers of Old English prose homilies and lives of saints continually employ the subject, but it is in medieval English literature that it is most fully found, both in prose and verse, and particularly in the drama. Art and literature all through Europe had from early times embodied in many forms the Descent into Hell, and specimens plays upon this theme in various European literatures still exist, but it is in Middle English dramatic literature that we find the fullest and most dramatic development of the subject. The earliest specimen extant of the English religious drama is upon the Harrowing of Hell, and the four great cycles of English mystery plays each devote to it a separate scene. It is found also in the ancient Cornish plays. These medieval versions of the story, while ultimately based upon the New Testament and the Fathers, have yet, in their details, been found to proceed from the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, the literary form of a part of which is said to date back to the second of third century. In its Latin form this "gospel" was known in England from a very early time; Bede and other Old English writers are said to show intimate acquaintance with it. English translations were made of it in the Middle Ages, and in the long Middle English poem known as "Cursor Mundi" a paraphrase of it is found.