Apokatastasis in the early church

[ElieG12]

ALL in Greek doesn't mean the same we mean today. Most times is about a subset of a bigger set.
I could mention many biblical examples to show you, but I really have not time right now.
Have a good one.

 

[St. SteVen]

ALL in Greek doesn't mean the same we mean today. Most times is about a subset of a bigger set.
I could mention many biblical examples to show you, but I really have not time right now.
Have a good one.

I'm familiar with the "all doesn't mean all" argument. - LOL

Did Jesus die to save you from God?

 

[ElieG12]

Evidently there are persons who will never be saved, so ... You need to see the whole picture before interpreting things erroneously.

Rev. 17:8 mentioned "those whose names have not been written in the scroll of life from the founding of the world". Obviously, those won't be saved as you think when you think on ALL in a universal sense.

Again: have a good day.

 

[St. SteVen]

Evidently there are persons who will never be saved, so ...

Evidently? - LOL
How did that happen? Who should we blame?

 

[face2face]

Evidently? - LOL
How did that happen? Who should we blame?

Cain is an obvious example.

 

[face2face]

Does Christian Universalism sidestep the justice of God?

@quietthinker The Greek word apokatástasis appears only once in the Bible, in Acts 3:21. Do you know the verse? Maybe this is one of the verse's you cling to tightly? F2F

www.christianityboard.com

Check out all the unanswered questions at St. SteVen and Quiet on page 9 - some questions are too hard to answer....the answers of which force you to detach from your false teachings....then what?

F2F

 

[Illuminator]

Collecting the writings of the apostles is one thing; writing false doctrine is another.

Agreed.​

The Circumcisers (1st Century)​

Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)​

Montanism (Late 2nd Century)​

Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)​

Arianism (4th Century)​

Pelagianism (5th Century)​

Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)​

Nestorianism (5th Century)​

Monophysitism (5th Century)​

Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)​

Catharism (11th Century)​

The Great Heresies

From Christianity’s beginnings, the Church has been attacked by those introducing false teachings. Here is a list of history's most notorious culprits.

www.catholic.com

 

[face2face]

Here is another verse to consider how a UR believer can beleive "all" are saved.

my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! Gal 4

The work God begins with those who respond to the Gospel is a process of development in Christ. Christ, and his character must be formed in us, but this cannot happen if you turn to the Law, or desire to change the Gospel. UR beleivers have change the Gospel (removed its warnings) and therefore disqualify themselves from Christ being formed in them.

I'm surprised this forum allow those to teach it.

F2F

 

[St. SteVen]

UR beleivers have change the Gospel (removed its warnings) and therefore disqualify themselves from Christ being formed in them.

I'm surprised this forum allow those to teach it.

That was uncalled for. Inferring that UR proponents aren't saved? (boo)

The standard doctrine makes the Good News of the Gospel BAD NEWS!
The claim that God with forethought and malice did predestine the vast majority for destruction. (slanderous) IMHO

/

 

[CadyandZoe]

That was uncalled for. Inferring that UR proponents aren't saved? (boo)

The standard doctrine makes the Good News of the Gospel BAD NEWS!
The claim that God with forethought and malice did predestine the vast majority for destruction. (slanderous) IMHO

/

You prefer a god of your own imagination. I get it.

 

[St. SteVen]

You prefer a god of your own imagination. I get it.

Did Jesus die to save us from God?
That's the god of your imagination.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

You prefer a god of your own imagination. I get it.

Did you read the OP?
This is a doctrine of the early church in the east. The Greek-speaking church.
Who knew the New Testament better than the western Latin-speaking church.
Who unfortunately gave us a doctrinally biased Bible translation.

/

 

[CadyandZoe]

Did Jesus die to save us from God?
That's the god of your imagination.

/

You have a Bible. Why don't you read it? The answer is there if you care to accept it. But you don't accept it. You make up your own god, which isn't much of a god at all.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Did you read the OP?
This is a doctrine of the early church in the east. The Greek-speaking church.
Who knew the New Testament better than the western Latin-speaking church.
Who unfortunately gave us a doctrinally biased Bible translation.

/

Who cares what the early church thought? I don't. Christians shouldn't either. We follow Jesus Christ.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

When many hear about Apokatastasis (the restoration of all things), Universalism, Christian Universalism,
Universal Restoration, Universal Reconciliation, Universal Redemption, UR...

There is an assumption that this is a new idea. Something modern liberal theologians cooked up. Not so.

Apokatastasis was a major part of Christian theology in the early church.

The main Patristic supporters of the apokatastasis theory, such as Bardaisan, Clement, Origin,
Didymus, St. Anthony, St. Pamphilus Martyr, Methodius, St. Macrina, St. Gregory of Nyssa (and probably the
two other Cappadocians), St. Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John of Jerusalem,
Rufinus, St. Jerome and St. Augustine (at least initially) … Cassian, St. Issac of Nineveh, St. John of Dalyatha,
Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite, probably St. Maximus the Confessor, up to John the Scot Eriugena,
and many others, grounded their Christian doctrine of apokatastasis first of all in the Bible.
— Ramelli, Christian Doctrine, 11.

--- Agree or disagree? ---

Quotes from the early church fathers in the next post.


@Chadrho @Patrick1966

Universal salvation of individuals? Never! Universal restoration of the universe due to the consequnces of sin? Absolutely!

 

[Wick Stick]

Whether an idea is old or new is not an arbiter of truth.

I think that if we can show that a certain idea didn't exist until, say, the 20th century... that would rule it out as a proper interpretation of the Bible. Don't you think so?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I think that if we can show that a certain idea didn't exist until, say, the 20th century... that would rule it out as a proper interpretation of the Bible. Don't you think so?

The argument in support of the ECF's reliability is based on the assumption that they are trustworthy sources of information due to their proximity in time and location to the Apostles. However, I disagree with this assumption since the New Testament epistles were written to people who were even closer in time and location than the ECF's, yet these earlier Christians still required Apostolic correction. Therefore, proximity alone cannot guarantee reliability.

I believe that the Early Church Fathers (ECF) made mistakes because they interpreted the Apostolic writings based on the philosophy of Greek philosophers like Plato and Philo. Today, we still struggle with the consequences of those mistakes as we work hard to undo the false doctrines passed down from the ECFs.

I have found that It is easier and less work to study the writings of the Apostles myself and learn directly from them.

The so-called Early Church Fathers weren't actually Fathers and these men have nothing to offer me.

 

[marks]

The argument in support of the ECF's reliability is based on the assumption that they are trustworthy sources of information due to their proximity in time and location to the Apostles. However, I disagree with this assumption since the New Testament epistles were written to people who were even closer in time and location than the ECF's, yet these earlier Christians still required Apostolic correction. Therefore, proximity alone cannot guarantee reliability.

At the end of the day, we still are to compare all others who would be teachers to the Apostolic writings themselves, whether they be one year ago or a 1000 years ago.

Comparisons between their writings and Scriptures show obvious differences, so then if they agree, why not use the Bible? When they disagree, the only reason to use the 'ECF' would be to "prove" something not in Scripture.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Universal salvation of individuals? Never! Universal restoration of the universe due to the consequnces of sin? Absolutely!

All of his threads that I see are to promote universalism, through manipulative and deceptive posting.

Much love!

 

[marks]

That was uncalled for. Inferring that UR proponents aren't saved? (boo)

The standard doctrine makes the Good News of the Gospel BAD NEWS!
The claim that God with forethought and malice did predestine the vast majority for destruction. (slanderous) IMHO

/

You call good evil, and evil good. Jesus died to save you from your sins, and their consequences. Which you WILL suffer, if you do not trust in Jesus to save you by His death and resurrection through your faith - in this life - to be born again - in this life.

You preach a candy-man god who lies. It's not God who is the liar.

Much love!