Confident Christian Universalism - with Robert Fortuin
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Watch the FULL documentary HERE: • Will All Be Saved? Exa...
Download the Ancient Faith App:
apps.apple.com...
play.google.co...
Follow Ancient Faith on Social Media:
www.instagram....
/ ancientfaithministries
Find Books and Other Resources from Ancient Faith:
store.ancientf...
Support Ancient Faith Ministries:
afm.kindful.co...
About us:
Ancient Faith Ministries exists to carry out the Great Commission of Jesus Christ through accessible and excellently-crafted publications and creative media that educate, edify, and evangelize, leading to a living experience of God through His Holy Orthodox Church.
Ancient Faith Ministries operates with the blessing of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America.
Confident Christian Universalism - with Robert Fortuin
#orthodoxchurch #easternorthodox #orthodoxy #ancientfaith
If God said that all things will be restored, then all things will be restored. God is not going to abruptly abandon and forfeit the chess game that he is playing. The Calvinists and infernalists assume that we have made a chess move that God was not prepared for.
"No end to evil" - exactly, this is the summary of my position. It's core to my faith that God will end evil. Not sustain it forever in a pocket dimension dedicated to it.
I agree it’s definitely untidy. 5 billion years from now does God still want to be hearing the cries of the Damned? God knows how to handle this.
10:13 and 26:09 one of the big problems in convincing Infernalists that there is no eternal punishment is that they hold deeply the corrupted, disorderd human idea that "justice" is necessarily and only punitive.
In reality, Divine Justice is ultimately restorative.
Excellent point Matthew!
“Infernalists”? Lol…much easier to make a view point seem weak by separating it out from its context and giving it a newly/minted label.
At any rate, this is a weak-man argument - almost, in the Orthodox world, a straw-man since hearing “hell as punishment” is about non-existent. Even the most staunch rigorists aren’t about that.
Let’s try discussion that doesn’t make opponents defensive, eh?
@@traceyedson9652Tracey - it’s not a neologism I invented. I used it as a shorthand, not meant as a slur. In any case I have no problem discussing the issues at hand, as the videos and my comments clearly demonstrate.
@@traceyedson9652 regardless of what “they are all about” the fact of the matter is that they (I hope you are not one of them 😊) defend and promote an eternal damnation of God’s creatures. An injustice of infinite proportions! A doubting if God’s promises and desire which is quite frankly shocking and disappointing.
@@robertfortuin1750 I think the first hurdle for you who defend universalism as a firm belief is that it really doesn’t hold to that “believed everywhere and by all.” Now, as with other aphorisms, that one must be viewed in context with reasonableness and not as a weapon (rather like “outside the Church no salvation”). But it’s true that the vast majority of Christian churches & communities hold to some form of eternal condemnation as at least a possibility. (No, we are not all Southern Baptists!) Given that, unless major changes are made, to call the vast majority by a moniker, i.e. “infernalist,” gives the impression that it is not the most wide-spread view. U-ism is not the traditionally held teaching of the Church writ large, even if the common view held among conservative Catholics & evangelicals (a burning Hell populated by most people) is also not held by all, seemingly most Orthodox, if my experience is normative, which I don’t know, admittedly. How about three monikers? Universalists, Infernalists, and Orthodox?? 😁
Read the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Apocatastasis was nowhere mentioned, let alone condemned, by the holy council.
Modernists, in their rush to pretend that the Orthodox Church has condemned apocatastasis, regard the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa and of St. Isaac of Nineveh as containing heresy. Taking such a stance against God's saints is an affront to Christ and His Church.
Yes, isn't it strange that nowhere in the acts is there evidence of a debate about it. No deliberation --- nothing. All we get is 15 anathemas as an appendage. Also strange - the council was convened by Justinian to deal with the Three Chapters to bolster Chalcedon - it was decidedly not about Origenism, Origen, nor universalism. We do know why the anathemas were included - due to a prolonged dispute between anti and pro Origenist factions pressure was put on Justinian to condemn Origenism. What these groups taught precisely, this is not known. The label "Origenist" is quite open. Recall this is some 350 years after Origen.
It is so very refreshing to see a pair of people who you can tell don't necessarily agree on the subject they are speaking about still treating each-other with respect and honor. What a wonderful interview. Thank-you!
Yes it is, thank you for this feedback!
As a true universalist, not a Christian universalist, I have to say I am amazed at the inability to accept the love of God in a purely restorative capacity. Why the need to introduce judgment? I guess you figure this is a one time through world and whatever happens in the flesh as we live now matters more than who we are becoming? Because learning takes error. How do you even expect to transform, if you cannot admit the process of experiencing error along the way to finding the truth? The ridiculous preoccupation with sin and the weird admiration of purity that most Christians have confesses this inability daily. Instead, you should 'suffer the little children to come unto me.' Any true universalist will tell you that God has put us here to learn. We are as children in the garden.
Yes, and to your point - the infinite disproportion between a finite transgressive act and an infinite, never-ending punishment is ludicrous, so unbefitting a what is right and just. Oddly, ironically, it is the notion of justice that is used to defend an unending Hell! Connect the dots people, think it through, and think for yourself.
❤ ❤ ❤
I feel like the problem as you stated is this argument that if the church were to accept universalism then people would leave the church and live however they wanted to. But that misses the point of salvation, of following Gods will. This life has so much suffering, and universalism does not change the fact that for our suffering to have meaning, for our lives here on earth 8:26 to have meaning, we need to walk with Christ , repent, and follow his will; strive for Theosis here and now .
@@DM100 Very good point indeed. Not easy, but that is our calling. "We have no other but Thee O Lord" - what would we do, where would we go?
@@RyanFitzgerald-kr6ss exactly. Beautiful verse
I have absolute confidence in the salvation of all through Christ because God ALREADY saved all through Christ 2000 years ago. That's why He came (John 12:47-48).
you: "because God ALREADY saved all through Christ 2000 years ago"
If that were true then preaching would be unnecessary.
Only the believing are saved (1 Tim 4:16). Only the believing are justified (Rom 5:1). Only the believing are resurrected just (Acts 24:15).
Vengeance doesn't make the others just (2 Thes 1:8). Torment doesn't make them just. (Rev 14:11). The second death doesn't make them just (Rev 21:8).
It's the kindness of God that leads men to repentance - not wrath, vengeance, torment, and fire.
So much for the "happy God" belief.
@@Pablo-p7y Pablo! You're everywhere! I proclaim the good news because it's good, and it's true. And because you preach bad news. People need to know what God and Christ really accomplished for them 2000 years ago. Sadly, many people believe your lies, therefore, I proclaim.
@@TheBiggestJesus
you: "Pablo! You're everywhere!"
Hi Wes,
If God will conciliate all to Himself - including the devil - then He must love the devil, right?
Do you love the devil ?
@@Pablo-p7y I love all my enemies, as my Father also does. Do you love all your enemies, Pablo?
@@TheBiggestJesus yes, people not the devil. Only the children of the devil would love their father. Nice evade, Wes ;)
Rom 8:28
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
to those who are "called" according to His purpose
Not all men are "called" (Rom 8:30).
Universalists say God causes all things to work together for EVERYONE'S good.
Perishing is not good 1 Cor 1:18). Torment is not good (Rev 14:11). Vengeance is not good (2 Thes 1:8). Wrath is not good (John 3:36). In contrast the elect were never appointed to wrath (1 Thes 5:9).
So much for the "happy God" theory 🤗
Have a nice night , Wes
What a wonderful discussion. Robert Fortuin is really brilliant.
Glory be to God Louise Eliza, I am blessed to know you found it worthwhile.
The free will argument amounts to there being no God whatsoever. What parent will not put boundaries upon their child’s “free will”? If God will just let us do anything whatsoever to our destruction then why bother calling him your father at all?
@@ptt3975 You make a very astute observation - that is so true. Another way of putting it: freedom does not consist in the act of choosing, but rather we are free when we chosen well. St Maximus makes this distinction - according to him freedom is the capacity to act upon that which is according to human nature (when it is well for us); freedom lies not in what is chosen, nor in the act of choosing. Super insightful it seems to me. This is so contrary to the popularized view of freedom and freewill which makes the act of choosing (this vs. that) freedom itself.
@@robertfortuin1750 thank you and yes, that is exactly correct. I feel that the majority of the church world are not actually thinking through what they believe.
@@ptt3975 Haha, this is about what I was thinking when the topic of free-will was being discussed.
I do not understand why so many people in the comments give validation to the ecumenical councils that “condemn “ Christian Universal Redemption, when those same councils thought it ok to kill those they say as heretics and taught that Mary was a eternal virgin nad never sinned and never died. When they don’t have a basic understanding of who God is otherwise they would have condemned the killing of heretics.
I have believed in Apokatastasis for two years and somehow had not heard of this guest. I will seek out his writings. It is clear that many are seeing the truth. As a classical Protestant I see this an example of “semper reformando” and credal advance.
That’s fine, perhaps, in mainline Protestant circles where, ultimately, everything is necessarily up for debate. “Credal advance” is a much more dubious dynamic for the Orthodox. We’re still arguing with Roman Catholics about it.
@@traceyedson9652hardly a change of the faith and “creep” when the likes of St Clement, St Isaac and St Gregory of Nyssa taught that all will be saved some 16 centuries ago.
Hi Warren, I am a very minor light (dimly lit at that). I am over at Eclectic Orthodoxy quite a bit.
I remember a conversation between [Silouan] and a certain hermit who declared with evident satisfaction,
‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’
Obviously upset, [Silouan] said,
‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there you looked down and saw someone burning in hell-fire - would you feel happy?’
‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.
[Silouan] answered him in a sorrowful countenance:
‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’
The argument that universalism means that we can all sin to our hearts content, should be completely ignored. No person who has walked with the Lord more than 10 steps is going to say something so stupid. It’s an amateurish, outsiders statement. All of us who have walked with the Lord are being continually corrected in this life. Even Jesus learned obedience by the things he suffered. The more I study universalism the less I sin because I live in joy. I no longer need to console myself with sin.
I would love to interview Robert Fortuin on the Grace Saves All podcast. Does anybody know an email for him or any contact info?
Hello David - glad to be featured on your podcast - looking forward to getting that released soon.
Even Hitler would eventually be paid back. After that point, further punishment would be unjust despite people's feelings. That, of course, is assuming the retributive model of Hell. If we take the patristic chastening Hell, then Hitler is done when he has finished repenting for every last sin. This might even involve, in a creative reading, living through what he did to others so he can see how it felt.
That's exactly right!
The host doesn't seem to understand the classical view of free will which is at the heart of the patristic understanding of universalism. The teleological context of free will can seem deterministic to the modern assumptions around (secular) libertarian free will, but certainly one would not say that Jesus was less free for not being able to sin.
YES and amen! Exactly right. I tried to explain it. We are transcendentally determined, as God is the only telos, the only true choice. At the Eschaton, when all is said and done, there will only be God, and all will then be completely free.
Something ive been thinking about: does eternal in the sense of eternal life or eternal torment mean "for an infinite amount of time" or is it "outaide of time" the way we say God is "eternal"? God certainly hasnt existed *only* for an infinite amount of time as God is outside of time. Would using the later understanding of eternal to mean "outside of time" allow that souls will indeed experience torment "eternally" and will be reconciled to God "eternally" ?
I think that in reality it's those who assert eternal condemnation who are denying free will. Do you not think that given forever and ever and ever and ever, eventually those souls in hell, if the door is locked from the inside so to speak, would get tired of suffering for eternity and voluntarily go through the pergation process In order to be United with God one day? Especially once the ignorance of this life is stripped away?
I think a good image is this. Imagine someone was taken prisoner into the coliseum and told to choose between one of two doors. In the first door, there's a hungry lion who will immediately maul to death the prisoner if they choose said door. However, in door 2 his soulmate is on the other side and if he picks that door he gets to go free and marry her. One of the coliseum guards felt sorry for this prisoner and told them which door is which. Now ask yourself this. Would any sane person, ie. a free person, choose door one? Of course not they'd have to be insane in order to choose it. Now how much worse is hell and how much better is heaven than door one and door two, and how much freer will we be when all of our ignorance is stripped away in the next life? I believe this is the point Dr Fortuin is trying to get at. Really it's a defense of free will.
That’s no where found though. Doesn’t Paul say there is no repentance after death?
@@garrettbar2212 Don't think so. Where?
@@garrettbar2212no, where is St Paul teaching that???
Very good analogy indeed! It would be the truly irrational. And in what way can this person be said to be free? Choosing the irrational over light and life and joy and fulfillment- this is not being free at all.
@@garrettbar2212 No. St Paul does mention purgation though. Saying in 1st Corinthians 3:15 "If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."
Saints who have spoken on Universalism / the distortion of "Apokatastisis," which in Greek means "restoration," this words means "the restoration of all things in Christ"... source: ruclips.net/video/OzDKg46nyZw/видео.html
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Justin Martyr
St. Theophilus of Antioch
St. Irenaeus of Lyons
St. Hippolytus of Rome
St. Cyprian of Carthage
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Basil the Great
St. Epiphanius of Cyprus
St. John Chysostom
Blessed Jerome of Stridonium
Blessed Augustine
St. Theodore the Studite
St. Symeon the New Theologian
St. Nicetas Stethatos
Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria
St. Symeon of Thessalonica
St. Elias Miniatis
St. Ignatius Brianchaninov
St. Theophan the Recluse
St. Cyriacus the Solitary
Blessed John Moschus
(Evening Prayer by) St. John Chrysostom
---"O Lord deliver me from the eternal torments."
(Evening Prayer by) St. John Damascene
---"O Lord, I fear Thy Judgement, and the endless torments."
St. John Chrysostom
St. Amphilochius of Iconium
St. Ephraim the Syrian
(Synodical Letter of) St. Sophronius of Jerusalem read and accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council
St. Paisios the Athonite
Not sure what your point is.
Universalism does not maintian that there is an absence of torment in the afterlife but that it is restorative and not eternal. “Love could not bear that…we must pray for all.” St. Silhouan
To me, universalism does not take one ounce of the intense seriousness of salvation in this life for granted! It just doesn’t change that truth at all.
@@robertfortuin1750I agree with you here. The list above have a few saints that did believe In Universal Restoration…
Organism was da first "ism" in da world.
- 🚬🗿🍷 Son of God.
There's billions of Truths but only one reality.
- ☄️🌠🌌♾️ Also me.
Ty 4 sharing your opinion and faith! Great video! Bless ya 🙏 One Love.
I want to share something i have thinking alot About 😅:
I have always enjoyed drawing. That's my thing. I always have the drawing with me.
I will give 3 examples:
1. When I'm out among others in everyday life, I can sit and make ill-conceived doodles in the corner of my notebooks while listening to the teacher at school. I can do both illegal and legal graffiti with my friends and draw with chalk on the ground.
2. At home alone, I can immerse myself when I draw. It is more intense and I draw what I want. Very meditative. And more well thought out and bolder drawings. Works.
3. Then I also go to drawing school. There I learn new skills and drawing skills. I'm simply getting better at drawing. Something that I learn to draw is not my style and does not suit my line. And some drawing techniques I never learn.
These are 3 examples of me and drawing and my relationship with drawing and how I practice drawing.
I will compare the drawing to God. My relationship with drawing and my relationship with God:
1: (Is how I use God out among others in everyday life. = graffiti, chalk on the pavement and doodles in a notebook)
2: How I use god (god = drawing) at home.
3: When I go to church. (church=drawing school)
I dont know if it makes sense .. 😂😅 just a some thought
I'm still working on finding a language for it. Damn Babylon shizzle dizzle wizzle. 😂
Some other of my thoughts:
Hell is a state both physical and psychological. A scenario on the Earth as a result describes a reality as a consequence of this. It is the perception of reality and the consequence of this. The same with the kingdom of God.
Jesus was actually about panentheism (good pantheism?) but people around him ofc made a monotheistic religion out of hes teachings. The Nicene Narrative is good fan culture. But Freethinking is the real deal. Jesus sets us free from religion. Ofc Christianity is now a religion but Real Christianity is a relationship.
Gods Kingdom is about love. Devils Kingdom is about money. Dont make/earn/serve money. Make/earn/serve love.
Amen.
Edit: Do i have to say And no love for money!?
🤣🤣 Thats a sin! 🤣🤣 As far as i know .
With that (it) said. Money itself are not evil. But its neither any good to worship, desire or live for.
A rapper in my country (Denmark) says (in Danish):
,,Hav penge i lommen, ikke i hjertet, det et budskab,
hav dem i hjertet og end som en psykopat,"
English Translation:
,,Have money in your pocket, not in your heart, that's a message,
keep them in your heart and then we have a psychopath,
Let us struggle with all our powers to gain Paradise. The gate is very narrow, and don’t listen to those who say that everyone will be saved. This is a trap of Satan so that we won’t struggle.
-St. Paisios the Athonite
What’s the context of that Bill? I surely don’t know any universalist who claim we should end the struggle!
@@robertfortuin1750 Pretty Plain English and Simple.
As for the Struggle. Confident Universalism diminishes the Gospel and the Faith of any urgency. What it can impose is that I can Struggle on my time and at my pace. Relax, We will all be saved. This is comfortable Christianity. That is not the message
i believe The Gospel and The church fathers are trying to accomplish. The gate is narrow and only a few will enter seems like a get it together call. You can't keep hanging your hat on a few Bible verses that are misinterpreted and a couple of Saints including a guy named orgin who clearly nobody know for a reason.
There are far more Bible verses that talk against universalism and many more Church fathers that are against it.
This type of belief is an excuse to do the bare minimum to enter into the Kingdom.
Personally, I love it, but it just doesn't seem right.
Nevertheless, The Church never accepted Universalism either, so its best to keep it a Mystery and keep on our struggle.
@@billkanelopoulos7165 I think you’re lost in a man’s reasoning, gospel. Does scripture say that it’s Gods punishment that leads man to repentance or is it God‘s goodness that leads us to repentance?
Hello! I’m glad you guys are doing a treatment of this! I have been interested in this for a while now!
So, the first six minutes or so, I was able to see what the speaker was saying, and agreed on several points. However, around the 7:00 mark, he said that a finite being is incapable of incurring eternal consequences because their actions are necessarily finite. I think we have a little bit of a logical fallacy here. Just because the being themselves is finite does not mean that the ramifications of their actions have to die with them. Indeed, they don’t. The example is given of Hitler, and he said that as horrible as his actions were, they were finite, they’re not eternal. But I would beg to differ, and I think the survivors would, too. The Jewish population was decimated by the Holocaust, and it didn’t just bounce back after the war. The people who died would have presumably had their own lineages by now; the Jewish population would look entirely different. The names of those victims were not the only things wiped out in those years, but everything that they ever could have said/done/been, all their descendants could have said/done/been, etc. So I think that, from God’s perspective, that matters.
There is a need for us to compassionately repent of our evils with the aid of Christ. We cannot single out people and deny our role in our giving in to the enemy.
Thank you Kay and I appreciate your concern and thoughtful comment. It remains that all the suffering in the universe from the very beginning to its end, all this suffering cannot be infinite. It is a finite amount (a lot yes, so please don't think I am making light of it). It's the height of injustice (the injustice itself is infinite) to meet a finite transgression with a punishment that is never-ending, without hope of an end. A vindictive, capricious, sadistic, and hateful god ventures to create and abandons some of his creatures without hope, left FOREVER in pain, torture, fear and damnation. This is contrary to the God revealed in the Good News, the evangel, the Gospels. God is like a shepherd who seeks which is lost. He is like the widow seeking without rest to find a lost coin. God is not only loving, but He IS Love; He is good and Goodness itself; beautiful and Beauty itself.
@@BMoore335 yes and amen, that is the start of becoming fully human, to be the image of the Image.
When the first astronaut in history had been out into space and back again, the other earthlings asked if he had seen God and what did God look like? The astronaut answered yes and that God exists and that God is a black lady.
Or something like that.....
Something i heard or readed once some funny place i dont remember. I Actually think its sort of deep and hilarious.
Edit: oh wait! Google says: ,,Yes. She is black.” Replied the astronauts" 😅
The ending was very clear. He wants a theology that is rational and coherent according to his own fallen and unillumined reason. Orthodox theology is not based on logic and reason but on God’s revelation to those who are purified of the passions and filled with the Holy Spirit. The consensus of the saints and Fathers is clearly that there is an eternal condemnation for those who turn away from God in this life and fail to live in communion with Him. Universalism is not based on the living tradition of the Church nor the consensus of the saints, Fathers and Councils, but mostly on a few statements from a few saints taken out of context, ignoring what the same saints said which are opposed to Universalism.
This mindset can lead to a sort of unhelpful anti-intellectualism. In truth if you look at the early church fathers they were philosophers. They were trained in rhetoric and logic and they made full use of it. Theology and philosophy really weren't separate things for the ancient fathers, like how we like to separate them now. St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John chrystostom, St. Augustine ect. Were all holy men and philosophers. And that's the ideal in terms of a theologian who's going to produce theological accuracy. Holiness and rationality aren't in conflict. It's "yes and" not a dialectic.
Now does this mean that the stuff an uneducated monk has to say is not worth hearing? No not at all! You can be uneducated and have real experience of God and have extremely valuable insight. I also totally agree that it's possible to turn logic into an idol. But I guess my point is to say that it isn't wrong to want our theology to make rational sense. Certainly none of the fathers I mentioned above would disagree with me.
@@theheckplays2252 the early Fathers who were philosophically trained used reason to help explain and defend the Faith but they nevertheless spoke of the futility and useless of philosophy alone for leading to direct knowledge of, and communion with, God. In other words, they utilized their philosophical training as a tool but were very clear about the limitations of this tool and did not at all say that for theology to be true it must make sense rationally. Much of what we read in the gospels and much of Orthodox theology does not agree with reason and logic but faithfully safeguards the divine revelation which is beyond reason and logic. For example, that God is one and yet a Holy Trinity, or the many miracles that the Lord did in the gospels which defy logic and reason. Also, in Orthodoxy there is no such belief that we can follow a few statements from a few ancient Fathers and reject the clear teachings of every other saint and Father up to the present time. The consensus of the saints, Fathers and councils is clear that the sufferings of hell are eternal.
@@theheckplays2252there’s a difference between philosophy and “I believe that…,” “I feel that…, and “I think that…” I believe, feel & think, too. I didn’t find anything here compelling from the patristic, canonical witness, though I did find the suppositions, assumptions, and speculations inviting. Supposition: that God’s love can only have one end. Assumption: that God’s love fails if it is rejected. Speculation: that “condemnation” can’t be eternal because its punishment and punishment requires a telos. Also, he seems to take a Bentley-Hart approach to the majority “view”: that it is lacking in the supreme Christian virtues and foundational beliefs vis a vis grace, love, and telos.
@@3devdas777 The early church fathers were philosophers. To them there wasn't a difference between theology and philosophy. They didn't study "theology" at college. It's anachronistic. St. Justin Martyr considered Christianity to be the fulfillment of all prior philosophy. And he said that the reason pagan philosophy didn't make sense was because it didn't have Christ who is the truth who does make sense. I'm not denying that personal piety is more important than being smart or philosophical or whatever. It is. I'm just saying the fathers wrote volumes and volumes upon volumes because why? Because they had a lot of contemplation and a lot of making sense of things to do. and that they did.
Appealing to the masses is a common logical fallacy. In fact, many scholars agree that for the first 4 centuries of the church, most Christians were universalists. However, we are arguing for the truths within scripture. There is no good single biblical argument to support eternal separation from God.
Why are my comments removed
I can see this one and the response you made to @matthewhebbert9712, did you make any other comments?
2:20 rather than a "bold proclamation of the gospel" it seems to be a "bold heresy"
makes more sense now why many have critiqued AFR to the extent that they have. as an inquirer/catechumen I utilized the booklet "building a habit of prayer" and I'm thankful that our parish has them available... but publishing videos espousing outright heretical views is too much.
AFR is doing no such thing. It’s providing a public forum for the Church to discuss matters within herself. And being yet a catechumen, I’d suggest you’ve some assumptions here that may be incorrect. In part, the Church’s condemnation was not made with anything like the fleshing out that other heresies received. Exactly what was condemned and why is anything but clear. I suggest you’d be hard-pressed to know what is “too much,” given that AFR is a ministry under episcopal oversight.
@@traceyedson9652 there really doesn't seem to be any need for this kind of open forum, the Saints of the Church are a far better reference than this overly nuanced academic approach. I'll bet that this is just another thing moving the Overton window towards a more ecumenist mindset...
In my original comment I said "as a catechumen I utilized" utilized past tense..
@@traceyedson9652furthermore, Robert goes on to cite Scriptures saying that "it's clearly there" which sounds very Protestant and his interpretations are likely not aligned with that of the Saints.
@@OrthoCarpenterGuy while the presenter hasn’t convinced me, I’m not convinced by your remark. If it’s not valuable, I’m not sure why you’re engaging. I think it’s valuable since God created our minds, the saints clearly used there’s, and they didn’t agree on all things. Also, I didn’t find this presentation academic at all. It came off quite subjective to me, which is my biggest complaint.
@@OrthoCarpenterGuy Well, sounding Protestant isn’t an objective standard. It may sound so to you. It didn’t sound especially Protestant to me. And to say “the saints” is very, very broad. Have you read all the Saints? In their original tongues? And understood then? And have the mind of Christ? That’s quite a claim, which you’d need to have to make the judgment. Though I note that you gave yourself an out by saying “likely,” which means you don’t know but are supposing. Which isn’t much to stand on.
We should all be grateful that organizations openly show their true colors so we stop or don't support them. As someone who rationally inclines to universalism but treats it as a temptation because of the overwhelming evidence, to treat as a live option something that the Church unambiguously condemns is obviously incompatible with Orthodoxy
What do you mean by organizations showing their true colors?
@@AncientFaithMinistries I meant your organization
@@Jy3pr6 Ancient Faith produced a documentary on universal salvation and we interviewed people from both sides to get their perspective. You can find the documentary with people who do represent Ancient Faith responding to what's being said here: ruclips.net/video/FglOip0WFi0/видео.html&ab_channel=AncientFaith
As part of this doc we also interviewed a priest and two Orthodox academics who would be more in your camp with the view that universal salvation is incompatible with Orthodoxy, and a bishop and a priest who would be more in the undecided camp. Here is the entire playlist of interviews: ruclips.net/video/AcCQOPw_0rw/видео.html&ab_channel=AncientFaith
@@AncientFaithMinistries That's my point, the Church has made it clear that the case is closed regarding this but you're treating it as if it's open. You are misguiding people in thinking that this is an option.
I think the issue at bottom is that we in the West generally still engage with religion through our minds and thoughts. For the vast majority of faithful in the Mother Lands (with the probable unfortunate exception of Greece), Orthodoxy is in every way something received. I've been living in this part of the world for almost a year and I can say that that's true in at least Russia and Georgia. Since they don't primarily think about Faith, they may personally sympathize with a heresy but it won't ever become known since they don't engage with religion that way primarily. And if they voice a heretical opinion, the majority proves it isn't an option and everyone moves on. There aren't eternal debates about the epistemic content of the Faith here, people just live it more or less faithfully and struggle with their personal passions together with their spiritual guides.
If we'd all just be quiet about doctrine and let the Church tell us what it is and believes, we could start bearing the fruit that you find in the Motherlands, but unfortunately we're still for the most part too defensive about preserving our "Americanness" to receive the Faith as it's always been instead of presupposing that what we are attached to about our culture is compatible with Orthodoxy and insisting that it is without input from the Church and Tradition. We're "forever searching but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." It's unfortunate.
@@AncientFaithMinistries If you already read my last response, the last paragraph was part of a larger reflection I wrote down but decided not to send. I didn't realize I didn't delete the whole thing so I sent it by accident
Isn’t this super heretical?
I mean this guy doesn’t even understand the historical aspect of a ‘gospel’ and what it meant. A gospel was a proclamation that there is a new king, is it not? Sussin
Oh I had no idea 😂😂. Well count me stupid with St Gregory of Nyssa. 😊😊.
@@robertfortuin1750 st Gregory's perspective on this wasn't accepted as church doctrine. In fact it's possible it was rejected by the church but because st Gregory wasn't resolute about preaching it he wasn't condemned for teaching it.
@@prayunceasingly2029 On the contrary: 1.) he wrote about it openly and in various of his writings, in great detail, and 2.) he wasn't condemned for it, not in his lifetime, nor posthumously - in fact he is called the "father of Fathers" by the 7th Council.
@robertfortuin1750 I'm going off the impression others in the orthodox church had on the issue. Apokatastasis is not official church doctrine. And it seems the church has official dogmas or doctrines on this matter already which are not open to re interpretation
@@robertfortuin1750 him being a father of fathers doesn't mean he was correct on apokatastasis
Open to discuss this with anyone who is interested - but I do ask that you first clearly understand my position. Please don't tilt against the proverbial windmills. 😀😀😀
You cited St. John Chrysostom as if he supported universalism. He preached against universalism in no uncertain terms. How do you justify making use of a Church Father that was unambiguously opposed to what you are espousing?
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 He's quite strong about the finality of Christ's slaying of death (such as in his Paschal Homily), that's all I am claiming. He was not publicly known to be a universalist, that is not my claim at any rate. My position doesn't stand or fall on that. How do you square creatio ex nihilo with eternally persisting evil?
The references to St. Sophrony, St. Silouan and other saints supposedly teaching universalism is based on complete distortions of their words. Universalism is based on lies and distortions.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194Fr John: I do not know his position on St John Chrysostom, but may be able to offer what could perhaps be some insight on how someone could get there. St John’s protection of Origenists was used to stain his reputation among anti-Origenists. St Isidore attempted to defend his reputation, and was accused of Origenism himself. While St John Chrysostom is certainly no Origenist, passages such as a homily he delivered on Philemon where Gehenna is rehabilitating rather than retributive render his soteriology more complex than fits neatly into any of our modern categories or grammar.
Brother, out of genuine concern, please prayerfully consider reading this article by Fr. Whiteford: fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2015/04/stump-priest-is-universalism-heresy.html
Universalism was rejected by the Church in three different Councils, and the Fathers unanimously teach against it. We can't hold to this view as Orthodox Christians. Sts. Gregory and Isaac are deeply misunderstood on this topic. Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos has a book on it, clarifying the misconceptions.
May God guide you.
If the Church has already condemned this as heresy, who are we to say differently?
Because it's contrary to God who is infinite Love, who has mercy that knows no bounds! As St Paul put it, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us!"
Why are you promoting heresy? this has already been condemned
I believe the Gospel proclamation that death has been slain and that God will be All in all. I refuse to accept an eternal dualism where punishment and agony persists. Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death. Why do you refuse to believe that?
@@robertfortuin1750 Well, if we have free will, then I can willfully reject Christ. However, since creation is through Christ, I cannot tell Christ to remove Himself from Himself. Therefore, I am always in contact with His Uncreated Glory. As a result, I will perceive the Uncreated Glory as something harmful, not as the Glory being pleasant, and will always want to escape it. Yet, I cannot escape because all creation is through Christ. Furthermore, I wouldn't have free will if Christ could override my decisions. Christ doesn't send anyone to hell; we do that ourselves. We are invited to be synergistic with Christ. I'm not promoting the idea that man saves himself by accepting Christ and starting the journey of salvation. The Holy Spirit is leading us to the Water, but whether you drink from it, well, that's what each person has to work out with the assist of Trinity.
What are your thoughts?
@@harvestcrops3983 Willfully rejecting Christ FOREVER is neither rational nor free. That is bondage to the irrational, to insanity. To reject Christ is to not have known Him, and to not have known Him is to reject something other than Christ. I am not claiming that God overrides our decisions - what I do claim is that God reveals himself to us and removes the scales from our eyes and thereby redeeming the blind - this is synergistic, as we respond to His prompting. This is why Christ came (in His own words to redeem the blind!). For some this conversion process is dramatic and unpleasant like Saul on the road to Damascus. For others it is a gentle process, like many saints, the Theotokos for instance. I recommend buying a copy of David Bentley Hart's **That All Will be Saved**
@@robertfortuin1750
You misunderstand, everyone will be resurrected but the wicked will experience the afterlife negatively.. if someone HATES God.. then how would that feel good? you misunderstand and fall into heresy condemned at the 6th council ruclips.net/user/liveMvJuhbHwhZU?si=dFdq6-tz0sRG7Jmb
@@robertfortuin1750but the divine presence isn’t what your describing
This was condemned as heresy by the ecumenical counsels. End of story. You guys should be ashamed of yourself for promoting this. Who are you to question the morality of God?! Where you there when he created the heaven and the earth?
Where were the ecumenical councils when God created the Earth? Just calm down and let people discuss things without blowing your top.
People need to stop saying the word Hitler. All you are doing is revealing how the religious types who control the public media have brainwashed you. Secondly to say that God should do something bad to a Hitler because he is clearly a worse person than you disqualifies you from discussing theology in the first place.
Not true