dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Doesn't matter. The counsel still stands just like Augustine accepted the baptism of unbelieving donatists.

And Justinian was an Orthodox believer. We are not even talking about heretics.

Moreover, that is what I was stating. You believe in hell being temporal like the apparently current changing EOC, but the EOC does not believe that the unregenerate go from hell to heaven. That's what you believe.
Thus you do not hold to the EOC view of hell. So please stop stating this as a support mechanism.

---

I am not sure you and I are defining "universalism" the same way.

It is not everybody just goes to Heaven. There is just punishment for correction but ultimately there is reconciliation.

---

I know the kind of universalism to which you affirm.

We went over this in the "Death, Hell, and the Grave" thread.

"Ultimate reconciliation" is not the EOC adherence on hell.

You don't hold to the EOC view of hell.

The EOC position appears to be "we don't know what happens to them after the unregenerate are sent there."
Or it is an annihilationism believe.

But the EOC position is definitely not that all those sent to temporary torment will enter the gates of heaven.

You're making stuff up.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Doesn't matter. The counsel still stands just like Augustine accepted the baptism of unbelieving donatists.

And Justinian was an Orthodox believer. We are not even talking about heretics.

Moreover, that is what I was stating. You believe in hell being temporal like the apparently current changing EOC, but the EOC does not believe that the unregenerate go from hell to heaven. That's what you believe.
Thus you do not hold to the EOC view of hell. So please stop stating this as a support mechanism.

---

I am not sure you and I are defining "universalism" the same way.

It is not everybody just goes to Heaven. There is just punishment for correction but ultimately there is reconciliation.

---

I know the kind of universalism to which you affirm.

We went over this in the "Death, Hell, and the Grave" thread.

"Ultimate reconciliation" is not the EOC adherence on hell.

You don't hold to the EOC view of hell.

There position appears to be "we don't know what happens to them after the unregenerate are sent there."
Or it is an annihilationism believe.

---

Agree I do not adhere to the consensus EOC view of hell. But as I have posted, there are EOC saints and theologians who agree with ultimate reconciliation.They have not been excommunicated or had their sainthood removed.

And the EOC view of "hell" is nothing like the Western church. It is ontological, not judicial. "Hell" is not a place in EOC theology.

Yes. From the two options that were presented to you on the death, hell, and the grave thread, your response was option number two of universalism.

This is unfounded in historic Christianity. Period.
You are teaching novelty.

PabloSerna said:

---

I'm pretty sure it's just the RCC and EO that have the "real presence" doctrine that Jesus stipulated in John 6. To all others it is symbolic.

---

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Read Calvin as he quotes from the church father's and John 6.
Calvin held that we are caught up in the Trinity when we partake of the real presence of Christ in faith.
Of course this faith is by the hearing of faith and it is a gift of God, lest any man boasts.

You are thinking of Zwingli and most modern evangelicals. The Reformed hold to Calvin's view and can accept Luther's emphasis that Christ is condescending to the saints of humanity in communion.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Yes. From the two options that were presented to you on the death, hell, and the grave thread, your response was option number two of universalism.

This is unfounded in historic Christianity. Period.
You are teaching novelty.

---

I have the same views as the saints from thousands of years ago had.

How is my view a novelty?

Here is a good review on the history in the church of ultimate reconciliation.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66776/was-universalism-the-majority-belief-of-the-early-church

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Doesn't matter. The counsel still stands just like Augustine accepted the baptism of unbelieving donatists.

And Justinian was an Orthodox believer. We are not even talking about heretics.

Moreover, that is what I was stating. You believe in hell being temporal like the apparently current changing EOC, but the EOC does not believe that the unregenerate go from hell to heaven. That's what you believe.
Thus you do not hold to the EOC view of hell. So please stop stating this as a support mechanism.

---

I am not sure you and I are defining "universalism" the same way.

It is not everybody just goes to Heaven. There is just punishment for correction but ultimately there is reconciliation.

---

I know the kind of universalism to which you affirm.

We went over this in the "Death, Hell, and the Grave" thread.

"Ultimate reconciliation" is not the EOC adherence on hell.

You don't hold to the EOC view of hell.

There position appears to be "we don't know what happens to them after the unregenerate are sent there."
Or it is an annihilationism believe.

---

Agree I do not adhere to the consensus EOC view of hell. But as I have posted, there are EOC saints and theologians who agree with ultimate reconciliation.They have not been excommunicated or had their sainthood removed.

And the EOC view of "hell" is nothing like the Western church. It is ontological, not judicial. "Hell" is not a place in EOC theology.

---

Yes. While the East inclines their focal point upon the corruption of sin, the West inclines their focal point upon the guilt of sin.

We Reformed hold to both. We also don't have this huge divide between sanctification and justification.

So people send themselves to hell because they are choosing what they are most inclined to choose as a result of sin.

Romans 1:18 (ESV)

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

Also states in line with considering the state of man previously above that:

R 1:21 (ESV)

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

It's not that unregenerate man do not have some relationship with the divine. It's that the wrath of God is upon their heads in their mad at Dad syndrome.
But I thought Christ propitiated or extinguished all sin?
Hahaha.

The next thing which relates is this.

Do you believe that our future obedience or lack thereof, which is covered, was credited to us by the work of Christ alone?

"So people send themselves to hell because they choose"

There is no choice in Reformed theology.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Doesn't matter. The counsel still stands just like Augustine accepted the baptism of unbelieving donatists.

And Justinian was an Orthodox believer. We are not even talking about heretics.

Moreover, that is what I was stating. You believe in hell being temporal like the apparently current changing EOC, but the EOC does not believe that the unregenerate go from hell to heaven. That's what you believe.
Thus you do not hold to the EOC view of hell. So please stop stating this as a support mechanism.

---

I am not sure you and I are defining "universalism" the same way.

It is not everybody just goes to Heaven. There is just punishment for correction but ultimately there is reconciliation.

---

I know the kind of universalism to which you affirm.

We went over this in the "Death, Hell, and the Grave" thread.

"Ultimate reconciliation" is not the EOC adherence on hell.

You don't hold to the EOC view of hell.

There position appears to be "we don't know what happens to them after the unregenerate are sent there."
Or it is an annihilationism believe.

---

Agree I do not adhere to the consensus EOC view of hell. But as I have posted, there are EOC saints and theologians who agree with ultimate reconciliation.They have not been excommunicated or had their sainthood removed.

And the EOC view of "hell" is nothing like the Western church. It is ontological, not judicial. "Hell" is not a place in EOC theology.

---

Yes. While the East inclines their focal point upon the corruption of sin, the West inclines their focal point upon the guilt of sin.

We Reformed hold to both. We also don't have this huge divide between sanctification and justification.

So people send themselves to hell because they are choosing what they are most inclined to choose as a result of sin.

Romans 1:18 (ESV)

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

Also states in line with considering the state of man previously above that:

R 1:21 (ESV)

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

It's not that unregenerate man do not have some relationship with the divine. It's that the wrath of God is upon their heads in their mad at Dad syndrome.
But I thought Christ propitiated or extinguished all sin?
Hahaha.

The next thing which relates is this.

Do you believe that our future obedience or lack thereof, which is covered, was credited to us by the work of Christ alone?

---

I believe that once we are born again we may fall but still remain saved by grace.

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Yes. From the two options that were presented to you on the death, hell, and the grave thread, your response was option number two of universalism.

This is unfounded in historic Christianity. Period.
You are teaching novelty.

---

I have the same views as the saints from thousands of years ago had.

How is my view a novelty?

Here is a good review on the history in the church of ultimate reconciliation.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66776/was-universalism-the-majority-belief-of-the-early-church

---

It was pretty evenly split among the notable church fathers. But but but, the 5th ecumenical council settled this topic.
For the church fathers were largely consumed with matters pertaining to the doctrine of God in response to the Gnosticism, sebellianism, Arianism, and later donatism rejected by Augustine. All the while dealing with pastoral duties to their flock, the first 4 counsels met for these kinds of purposes. And travel and communication was more difficult in those times.

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Doesn't matter. The counsel still stands just like Augustine accepted the baptism of unbelieving donatists.

And Justinian was an Orthodox believer. We are not even talking about heretics.

Moreover, that is what I was stating. You believe in hell being temporal like the apparently current changing EOC, but the EOC does not believe that the unregenerate go from hell to heaven. That's what you believe.
Thus you do not hold to the EOC view of hell. So please stop stating this as a support mechanism.

---

I am not sure you and I are defining "universalism" the same way.

It is not everybody just goes to Heaven. There is just punishment for correction but ultimately there is reconciliation.

---

I know the kind of universalism to which you affirm.

We went over this in the "Death, Hell, and the Grave" thread.

"Ultimate reconciliation" is not the EOC adherence on hell.

You don't hold to the EOC view of hell.

There position appears to be "we don't know what happens to them after the unregenerate are sent there."
Or it is an annihilationism believe.

---

Agree I do not adhere to the consensus EOC view of hell. But as I have posted, there are EOC saints and theologians who agree with ultimate reconciliation.They have not been excommunicated or had their sainthood removed.

And the EOC view of "hell" is nothing like the Western church. It is ontological, not judicial. "Hell" is not a place in EOC theology.

---

Yes. While the East inclines their focal point upon the corruption of sin, the West inclines their focal point upon the guilt of sin.

We Reformed hold to both. We also don't have this huge divide between sanctification and justification.

So people send themselves to hell because they are choosing what they are most inclined to choose as a result of sin.

Romans 1:18 (ESV)

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

Also states in line with considering the state of man previously above that:

R 1:21 (ESV)

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

It's not that unregenerate man do not have some relationship with the divine. It's that the wrath of God is upon their heads in their mad at Dad syndrome.
But I thought Christ propitiated or extinguished all sin?
Hahaha.

The next thing which relates is this.

Do you believe that our future obedience or lack thereof, which is covered, was credited to us by the work of Christ alone?

---

I believe that once we are born again we may fall but still remain saved by grace.

---

So you do not believe in imputed righteousness, which is the major part of justification by faith alone?

What do you think imputation means? It means that Christ's obedience and righteousness is credited to his sons and daughters.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Doesn't matter. The counsel still stands just like Augustine accepted the baptism of unbelieving donatists.

And Justinian was an Orthodox believer. We are not even talking about heretics.

Moreover, that is what I was stating. You believe in hell being temporal like the apparently current changing EOC, but the EOC does not believe that the unregenerate go from hell to heaven. That's what you believe.
Thus you do not hold to the EOC view of hell. So please stop stating this as a support mechanism.

---

I am not sure you and I are defining "universalism" the same way.

It is not everybody just goes to Heaven. There is just punishment for correction but ultimately there is reconciliation.

---

I know the kind of universalism to which you affirm.

We went over this in the "Death, Hell, and the Grave" thread.

"Ultimate reconciliation" is not the EOC adherence on hell.

You don't hold to the EOC view of hell.

There position appears to be "we don't know what happens to them after the unregenerate are sent there."
Or it is an annihilationism believe.

---

Agree I do not adhere to the consensus EOC view of hell. But as I have posted, there are EOC saints and theologians who agree with ultimate reconciliation.They have not been excommunicated or had their sainthood removed.

And the EOC view of "hell" is nothing like the Western church. It is ontological, not judicial. "Hell" is not a place in EOC theology.

---

Yes. While the East inclines their focal point upon the corruption of sin, the West inclines their focal point upon the guilt of sin.

We Reformed hold to both. We also don't have this huge divide between sanctification and justification.

So people send themselves to hell because they are choosing what they are most inclined to choose as a result of sin.

Romans 1:18 (ESV)

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

Also states in line with considering the state of man previously above that:

R 1:21 (ESV)

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

It's not that unregenerate man do not have some relationship with the divine. It's that the wrath of God is upon their heads in their mad at Dad syndrome.
But I thought Christ propitiated or extinguished all sin?
Hahaha.

The next thing which relates is this.

Do you believe that our future obedience or lack thereof, which is covered, was credited to us by the work of Christ alone?

---

I believe that once we are born again we may fall but still remain saved by grace.

---

So you do not believe in imputed righteousness, which is the major part of justification by faith alone?

What do you think imputation means? It means that Christ's obedience and righteousness is credited to his sons and daughters.

---

Yes I believe in imputed righteousness and justification by faith alone. Which is what I was trying to say but used the term born again. Please forgive me.

I am no theologian and did not go to seminary. Some terms, like in medicine, can be used as a gotcha.

Hopefully that is not your motive.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Yes. From the two options that were presented to you on the death, hell, and the grave thread, your response was option number two of universalism.

This is unfounded in historic Christianity. Period.
You are teaching novelty.

---

I have the same views as the saints from thousands of years ago had.

How is my view a novelty?

Here is a good review on the history in the church of ultimate reconciliation.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66776/was-universalism-the-majority-belief-of-the-early-church

---

It was pretty evenly split among the notable church fathers. But but but, the 5th ecumenical council settled this topic.
For the church fathers were largely consumed with matters pertaining to the doctrine of God in response to the Gnosticism, sebellianism, Arianism, and later donatism rejected by Augustine. All the while dealing with pastoral duties to their flock, the first 4 counsels met for these kinds of purposes. And travel and communication was more difficult in those times.

---

And my link and your link both showed how the 5th ecumenical council was confusing at best.

And why were the believers in ultimate reconciliation not disenfranchised from the Church?

It is very obvious that sincere, born again Spirit filled Christians of great knowledge had vastly differing opinions on the concept of hell. But to say my views are a novelty and not present in historic Christianity is incorrect in my opinion.

Weird that things do not change.

And I believe it is council and not counsel. Correct me if I am wrong.

Correction. I only counted 9 universalists on the link of church fathers.

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Doesn't matter. The counsel still stands just like Augustine accepted the baptism of unbelieving donatists.

And Justinian was an Orthodox believer. We are not even talking about heretics.

Moreover, that is what I was stating. You believe in hell being temporal like the apparently current changing EOC, but the EOC does not believe that the unregenerate go from hell to heaven. That's what you believe.
Thus you do not hold to the EOC view of hell. So please stop stating this as a support mechanism.

---

I am not sure you and I are defining "universalism" the same way.

It is not everybody just goes to Heaven. There is just punishment for correction but ultimately there is reconciliation.

---

I know the kind of universalism to which you affirm.

We went over this in the "Death, Hell, and the Grave" thread.

"Ultimate reconciliation" is not the EOC adherence on hell.

You don't hold to the EOC view of hell.

There position appears to be "we don't know what happens to them after the unregenerate are sent there."
Or it is an annihilationism believe.

---

Agree I do not adhere to the consensus EOC view of hell. But as I have posted, there are EOC saints and theologians who agree with ultimate reconciliation.They have not been excommunicated or had their sainthood removed.

And the EOC view of "hell" is nothing like the Western church. It is ontological, not judicial. "Hell" is not a place in EOC theology.

---

Yes. While the East inclines their focal point upon the corruption of sin, the West inclines their focal point upon the guilt of sin.

We Reformed hold to both. We also don't have this huge divide between sanctification and justification.

So people send themselves to hell because they are choosing what they are most inclined to choose as a result of sin.

Romans 1:18 (ESV)

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

Also states in line with considering the state of man previously above that:

R 1:21 (ESV)

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

It's not that unregenerate man do not have some relationship with the divine. It's that the wrath of God is upon their heads in their mad at Dad syndrome.
But I thought Christ propitiated or extinguished all sin?
Hahaha.

The next thing which relates is this.

Do you believe that our future obedience or lack thereof, which is covered, was credited to us by the work of Christ alone?

---

I believe that once we are born again we may fall but still remain saved by grace.

---

So you do not believe in imputed righteousness, which is the major part of justification by faith alone?

What do you think imputation means? It means that Christ's obedience and righteousness is credited to his sons and daughters.

---

Yes I believe in imputed righteousness and justification by faith alone. Which is what I was trying to say but used the term born again. Please forgive me.

I am no theologian and did not go to seminary. Some terms, like in medicine, can be used as a gotcha.

Hopefully that is not your motive.

---

Thanks for the correction. My dyslexia…
Hahah. No sir. The term universalists may even be seen as that by some folks. But that is why I presented a basic definition.

And no…the 5th council is not confusing. The author is an apologist trying to keep everyone together. So it is doublespeak at worst and promotion of charity at best.

And I will show you were I was going with imputation later, if God wills.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Correction. I only counted 9 universalists on the link of church fathers.

---

So my beliefs are not a "novelty"?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Doesn't matter. The counsel still stands just like Augustine accepted the baptism of unbelieving donatists.

And Justinian was an Orthodox believer. We are not even talking about heretics.

Moreover, that is what I was stating. You believe in hell being temporal like the apparently current changing EOC, but the EOC does not believe that the unregenerate go from hell to heaven. That's what you believe.
Thus you do not hold to the EOC view of hell. So please stop stating this as a support mechanism.

---

I am not sure you and I are defining "universalism" the same way.

It is not everybody just goes to Heaven. There is just punishment for correction but ultimately there is reconciliation.

---

I know the kind of universalism to which you affirm.

We went over this in the "Death, Hell, and the Grave" thread.

"Ultimate reconciliation" is not the EOC adherence on hell.

You don't hold to the EOC view of hell.

There position appears to be "we don't know what happens to them after the unregenerate are sent there."
Or it is an annihilationism believe.

---

Agree I do not adhere to the consensus EOC view of hell. But as I have posted, there are EOC saints and theologians who agree with ultimate reconciliation.They have not been excommunicated or had their sainthood removed.

And the EOC view of "hell" is nothing like the Western church. It is ontological, not judicial. "Hell" is not a place in EOC theology.

---

Yes. While the East inclines their focal point upon the corruption of sin, the West inclines their focal point upon the guilt of sin.

We Reformed hold to both. We also don't have this huge divide between sanctification and justification.

So people send themselves to hell because they are choosing what they are most inclined to choose as a result of sin.

Romans 1:18 (ESV)

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

Also states in line with considering the state of man previously above that:

R 1:21 (ESV)

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

It's not that unregenerate man do not have some relationship with the divine. It's that the wrath of God is upon their heads in their mad at Dad syndrome.
But I thought Christ propitiated or extinguished all sin?
Hahaha.

The next thing which relates is this.

Do you believe that our future obedience or lack thereof, which is covered, was credited to us by the work of Christ alone?

---

I believe that once we are born again we may fall but still remain saved by grace.

---

So you do not believe in imputed righteousness, which is the major part of justification by faith alone?

What do you think imputation means? It means that Christ's obedience and righteousness is credited to his sons and daughters.

---

Yes I believe in imputed righteousness and justification by faith alone. Which is what I was trying to say but used the term born again. Please forgive me.

I am no theologian and did not go to seminary. Some terms, like in medicine, can be used as a gotcha.

Hopefully that is not your motive.

---

Thanks for the correction. My dyslexia…
Hahah. No sir. The term universalists may even be seen as that by some folks. But that is why I presented a basic definition.

And no…the 5th council is not confusing. The author is an apologist trying to keep everyone together. So it is doublespeak at worst and promotion of charity at best.

And I will show you were I was going with imputation later, if God wills.

---

I know where you are going with this. But please carry on.

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Correction. I only counted 9 universalists on the link of church fathers.

---

So my beliefs are not a "novelty"?

---

Yes. Unless you can demonstrate it in the context of the sufficiency of Scripture, then it is novelty to the Protestant faith.
And I am thankful that you have stated that the consensus of the EOC belief in hell is against you.
And you have no church council on your side. Neither do I when it comes to double predestination. But I don't go around claiming that this was the view of Rome or the view of the EAstern church either.
But I do have two of the very best church fathers and raise the ante with the second church doctor Aquinas. One of two. He and Augustine….

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Correction. I only counted 9 universalists on the link of church fathers.

---

So my beliefs are not a "novelty"?

---

Yes. Unless you can demonstrate it in the context of the sufficiency of Scripture, then it is novelty to the Protestant faith.
And I am thankful that you have stated that the consensus of the EOC belief in hell is against you.
And you have no church council on your side. Neither do I when it comes to double predestination. But I don't go around claiming that this was the view of Rome or the view of the EAstern church either.
But I do have two of the very best church fathers and raise the ante with the second church doctor Aquinas. One of two. He and Augustine….

---

I do not remember ever saying that the EOC mainstream belief was ultimate reconciliation as I have known it is not. Now I did say there are saints and EOC theologians like Hart who believe in ultimate reconciliation.

Augustine was brilliant but is almost single-handedly responsible for the concept of ECT hell.

And where did the church fathers and saints who believed in ultimate reconciliation get their beliefs if not from Scripture?

I don't know . Some of those mere 7 church fathers on your side struggled in those times over other key doctrines. It is not really a good substantial claim.

For you don't really get into biblical exegesis until later with Chrysostom "the golden-mouth."

I hesitate to poke the bear but if you count the bolded views of the church fathers (which means the view was substantiated), the count is 9 for universal reconciliation and four for ECT hell.

And it really does not matter except to prove my point that ultimate reconciliation, ECT hell, and annihilationism were all established views of the church fathers.

Okay 9 was a vast minority. And the main proponents of it were early on, when even the Trinity was subordination. A heresy later that we had to adjust. Because it caused more heretics and did not fit what Scripture meant.

But i am more okay with annihilationism than universalism.
John Stott was a Reformed 39 Articles Anglican believer.
He made it more popular in modern traditions.
The problem is that people who were inspired from it
were not grounded in double predestination like Stott was.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Okay 9 was a vast minority. And the main proponents of it were early on, when even the Trinity was subordination. A heresy later that we had to adjust. Because it caused more heretics and did not fit what Scripture meant.

But i am more okay with annihilationism than universalism.
John Stott was a Reformed 39 Articles Anglican believer.
He made it more popular in modern traditions.
The problem is that people who were inspired from it
were not grounded in double predestination like Stott was.

---

Actually that is incorrect from the link I gave you. The majority with firm beliefs agreed with me.

I suppose. Now let's deal with Scripture alone.
For many of them didn't believe in Justification by faith until JC and A of Hip. And many can't understand them without double predestination in tact. For our works also justify us.
They also had high regards for the purpose of the law.

Do you believe in the Reformed view that Scripture interprets Scripture?

That when Scripture may appear at first to be obscure in one place is made clearer in another Scripture?

Can I pick and choose my church fathers also?

dermdoc said:

---

Can I pick and choose my church fathers also?

---

Forgot to mention Marcionism and its large following that early church also had to deal with from some of the church fathers on your side.

And the doctrine of God was what the focal point was.
Some who held your universalism view were not consistent in their beliefs because they really hadn't studied the Apostle Paul like JC and Augustine who brought the framework of Scripture into its consistency of double predestination predestination predestination why the hesitation

The Eastern Orthodox are councilists.
Why are we stuck talking about it?
They don't go against their official teachings
of their view of hell that the ones their eventually disappear from existence.

This is not your view. It's not just that universalism is not the common consensus or majority view. It isn't and will not ever be the official view of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

And i thought that had stated that you hold to EOC view of hell. I must have misread. Been busy reading, researching, praying, and posting on a variety of topics. On the politics forum, for instance. Blessings.
Would you please consider forgiving me, brother doc?

No worries.

Thank you.

God has used you brother Dermdoc. For you have attacked me at the hinge upon which the whole turns, as Luther called it when he wrote Erasmus On the Bondage of the Will.

You have boldly withstood me and you have been stating against these doctrines of grace what many wish they had the boldness for truth as you do to say.

And this has brought forth the truth. For love rejoices in the truth and endures all things (1 Corinthians 13).

I withstood Pastor John Lea. I screamed at him after service and raised my voice in challenging double predestination.
But John Aaron Lea stayed consistent and I eventually calmed down and read myself and couldn't argue against any longer.

What many of you are reading from me would have even been better if you had known me personally and been around me. My online persona is a tad bit different than when i probably 97% or more of the time speak calmly.
So there is that aspect to that this is not the ideal way to impart the truth of double predestination by the anointing of the Holy Spirit surround the convent community.

Here is a quick overview of Aquinas on Predestination by his religious order, Dominicans:



ETA: That it does not agree with what you have been saying about St. Thomas Aquinas.
ETA: Around the 4:07 mark he discusses St. Agustine as well which Aquinas cited.

I don't agree. The late letter of Augustine was clarifying and written to the audience of liberated Christians who now have freewill. St. Augustine had taught double predestination so strongly that he had to repeat what he had already tried to teach Pelagus that we still have a will, but it cannot choose the spiritual good apart from regeneration in God's own timing and irrevocable plan.

Secondly, these are paragraphs which I had posted directly from the Suma. This is typical Rome double speak. I love Rome. But she does this and bishop Francis isn't the first to do so. It's a tradition. St. Aquinas doesn't contradict himself.

But this is what Rome has done with St. James and St. Paul as well. They pit the two against each other as to say, "Don't you see? Scripture is obscure. You need us and you and to perform these visual rituals and not focus on the spoke word."

For St. James is stating that genuine and mature faith produces works. And St. Paul also agreed with this and you can see that in his writings. He uses the word fruit for the word works of the Holy Spirit in Galatians chapter 5.

St. Aquinas and St. Augustine are like the Reformed.
For we do not change our theology after page one on the doctrine of God, also called Theology Proper.

I'm not as familiar with Augustine, so I will stick to Aquinas, whom I have been reading since 1997. I can cite a number of writings in which he discusses this very topic and never waivers on free will.

ETA: To be clear, Aquinas writes that God is NOT the cause of sin. So no double predestination my friend. Here is his words from the Summa, Question 79, The external causes of sin. Article 1, is entitled, "Whether God is a cause of sin?"

In the scholastic format, Aquinas presents 4 Objections, then his Response followed by 4 Replies to each Objection. Here is the smoking gun, "It is therefore evident that God is in no way a cause of sin."

dermdoc said:

---

"So people send themselves to hell because they choose"

There is no choice in Reformed theology.

---

This is a very important !

I love St. Aquinas. However when I read him, my soul feels rather dry after ten or so minutes.
Aquinas is hard to understand because he tries to connect all kinds of Aristotelian definitions. If you start with his premise that double predestination is the truth, then what he is stating through his natural theology makes more sense.
He did believe that the sinful body affects freewill to choose the spiritual good. But he believed the mind was distinct from the body and didn't have the same effects of sin and he was writing to the saints. Original audience was not in regards to the unbaptized pagans. He was writing and read by baptized Catholic Christians.

Aquinas describes freewill for those who have been purchased as saints.
As well as a type of freewill because even pagans are free choosing agents, but they are less tethered than regenerate saints; and move about it all kinds of directions.
Have you not been paying attention?
This is going on today. And the natural theology of St. Aquinas has this emphasis that God's will is immutable in spite of the existence of freewill.

Aquinas never recanted what he wrote in his Summa on double predestination. Aquinas focuses his double predestination more on the basis of the immutable will of God. That everything happens out of necessity as Augustine first taught him. But Aquinas then shifts gears and discusses different distinguishing characteristics through the use of applied various definitions. To the structure that he builds on natural revelation. He kind of talked things to death and stopped depending enough on Bible revelation. So those who follow the Aquinas' model fail because they reject his premise from which he builds everything else upon double predestination.
For modern Catholics are also double predestined in God's immutable will which ultimately overrides by using own freewill against us to save us, even if they don't believe this.
That's how amazing grace is.

Please consult that you are making false accusations and this what y'all also do with interpreting James and Paul, too.
This is no surprise that you may not be able to see that St. Aquinas is writing to Christians. Original audience is always important to any hermeneutic.
We have freewill that we battle everyday through Divine empowering grace.
I don't disagree with any of those other things Aquinas states.
But, you haven't been humbled yet of his doctrine of double Amazon grace. And I pray your mind catches up with what your spirit already knows.
Thus you have no lenses for your interpretation of Aquinas on the freewill.

Have you not read above those passages on how we are also justified by works?
Where do you think double predestination came from?
For the saints freewill now is no longer under sin's dominion.

Romans 6:14 (KJV)

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

For in an human wisdom epistemology, you cannot reconcile without double predestination.

How are these things so? St. Paul writes that sin no longer has dominion over his saints. Now we have freewill under grace to obey and fulfill his law. For love fulfills the law.

Romans 13:8-11 (ESV)

10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And where does love come from now that love is apart of our freewill to continually be receiving?

1 John 4:10 (ESV)

10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins

What if double predestination is true?
What if double predestination is true?
What would you have to do?