That was a very interesting point regarding "the false incarnation". We give body to these principalities that become the manifestation of the false "gods" that promise to satisfy our most profound desires. That is precisely what is done in the sacrificial process in which the body of a human or animal is being offered for the god(s) as a physical representation of what is being done on a human level. Now, Christ, having defeated death and the prince of this world- the very one that is behind this principalities- liberates us from the bondage to this "false incarnation". And, finally, the image of humanity as a whole, participating of the true incarnation, is very beautiful. Very interesting stuff!! Thanks.
I think God is more creative than needing to destroy created things or even elements of created things. God is transformative and works to bring about (and restore) the love that was once there and has always been. It may be covered or masked by sin or hate or indifference, but God can-in a co-creative process with us-move us back into the fullest expression and actualization of love we once were. I think this is necessary to keep our identities, our selves, in tact. If you destroy me or parts of me, I would cease to be of my self. I would be someone different. God takes me where I am, what I am, and in partnership with me, moves me back towards that divine, infinite love. And I think God does that to all the creatures. And succeeds. Anything less would be tragic and on some level, feel like God has lost something of God’s beautiful creation. The infinite slightly less infinite, somehow.
Nicholas that was beautifully put and well thought out. It is by hearing the unadulterated Gospel that gives me the Courage to run to God's Judgement, and his Judgement is Christ. Self giving, co suffering unconditional love.
Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD). It reflects the general condemnation of Origenism and the specific rejection of universal restoration (apokatastasis) : "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and the monstrous restoration which follows from it, let him be anathema."The Fifth Ecumenical Council is known for condemning the teachings of Origen, particularly his ideas about pre-existence of souls and universal reconciliation (apokatastasis). Condemnation of Origenism: One of the central controversies addressed by the Fifth Council was Origen's teachings. Though his name is not explicitly mentioned in the council's official acts, several of the "anathemas against Origen" (from an earlier local council) were reiterated in relation to his followers. The specific doctrine of universalism (apokatastasis) was considered a problematic part of his theology, especially his idea that even the devil and demons would eventually be reconciled. The idea that the post-conciliar condemnations of Origenism were merely a fabrication or a political move of Emperor Justinian, and that the bishops of the Fifth Ecumenical Council were not in favor of condemning Origenism, can be challenged on several grounds, both historical and theological. 1. Historical Context of Origenism’s Controversy: Origenism had been controversial in the Church for several centuries prior to the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Origen himself (ca. 185-254 AD) was a respected theologian, but some of his speculative theological ideas (such as the pre-existence of souls, apokatastasis, and allegorical interpretations of Scripture) were problematic for later generations of Christians. The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) had already debated and rejected certain ideas associated with Origen, such as the pre-existence of souls. Thus, condemnation of Origen’s ideas did not begin with Justinian but had a long history within the Church. 2. Ecclesiastical Involvement Pre-Council: Before the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 AD), Origenism had been a growing issue, particularly in monastic circles in Palestine. Several bishops and theologians, including Theophilus of Alexandria and St. Epiphanius of Salamis, had already taken a strong stance against Origen’s ideas in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. In 400 AD, Theophilus of Alexandria held a local synod condemning Origen’s teachings, showing that opposition to Origenism was well-established in the Church long before Justinian’s involvement. This indicates that church leaders were concerned with Origenist teachings independently of imperial influence. 3. Bishops’ Endorsement of Anathemas: While there is some ambiguity regarding the formal adoption of the 15 anathemas against Origen during the Fifth Ecumenical Council, evidence suggests that the bishops in attendance did endorse the general condemnation of Origenism. The anathemas themselves may have originated from Justinian, but they reflected theological positions that were widely opposed by the Orthodox bishops of the time. In particular, Anathema XI of the 15 anathemas directly condemns Origen’s teaching of universal reconciliation (apokatastasis), which had been a serious theological issue. The bishops likely saw this condemnation as necessary to preserve orthodox teachings on the resurrection, final judgment, and eternal punishment. 4. Post-Conciliar Acceptance: The broader Church did not reject these condemnations as merely a political move by Justinian. In fact, subsequent councils and Church Fathers accepted and reinforced the condemnation of Origenism. For example: The Lateran Synod of 649 (convened by Pope Martin I) reaffirmed the rejection of Origenist ideas. St. Maximus the Confessor (580-662 AD) and other influential theologians accepted and defended the condemnation of Origen’s teachings. The Western Church, particularly through the popes, was involved in condemning Origen’s teachings. Pope Vigilius, while initially resistant to some of Justinian’s theological initiatives, eventually confirmed the decrees of the Fifth Council, including the rejection of Origenism. 5. Bishops’ Role in the Fifth Ecumenical Council: The bishops of the Fifth Council were not merely passive participants in a political maneuver. They were active in addressing various theological issues, including the Three Chapters controversy, and while Justinian’s influence was significant, the bishops participated in the conciliar process and endorsed key doctrinal decisions. The involvement of the Pope (Pope Vigilius, though in a complex situation) shows that the condemnations were not purely an imperial affair but had the involvement of Church leadership across the Christian world. 6. Theological Necessity: From a theological perspective, the ideas of Origenism, especially concerning universal reconciliation and the pre-existence of souls, posed serious challenges to the orthodox understanding of salvation, resurrection, and the final judgment. Condemning these ideas was seen as essential to protecting the Church's teachings on these matters. For example, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body and the eternal nature of hell (as taught by Jesus in the Gospels) was incompatible with Origen’s teachings of eventual universal salvation, including for the devil. Bishops saw the need to condemn these ideas to maintain the integrity of orthodox Christian doctrine. 7. Justin Martyr’s Political Influence Does Not Negate Theological Concerns: While Justinian had political motives (as many emperors did in their involvement in theological disputes), his motivations do not negate the fact that Origen’s ideas were genuinely seen as heretical by the broader Church. Theological decisions were not simply imposed by the emperor but were debated and, over time, accepted by the Church as necessary for doctrinal clarity. The fact that the anathemas against Origen were upheld by later synods, popes, and influential theologians across the Christian world indicates that the condemnations were not merely a political move but reflected a real and ongoing theological concern. Conclusion: The claim that the post-conciliar condemnations of Origenism were merely a fabrication or political move by Justinian does not hold up under scrutiny. Condemnation of Origen’s teachings had been a longstanding issue in the Church well before Justinian’s involvement. The bishops of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, while influenced by the emperor, were theologically invested in rejecting Origenism, and their condemnation of these ideas was reaffirmed by subsequent Church synods, theologians, and popes. Thus, the anathemas against Origenism reflect not just imperial politics but a genuine and broad-based theological rejection of certain speculative teachings that were incompatible with Christian orthodoxy. Pope Benedict XVI in Spe Salvi (2007). In paragraph 45, "There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love... In such people, all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell."
One thing I wonder about - once God has torn down the false incarnation, and we have conformed to Christ, who is our perfect example, won't we all just be copies of Christ, resurrected, and identical in every respect?
Those who are wholly Divinized will be identical in Energy but unique in the receptive capacity of that energy. Each will receive according to his disposition so that, for MAXIMUS, the many variations of dispositions degrees are the many mansions to dwell in. Hence why star will very from star in glory as the Apostle says.
I believe Maximus is a saint in the east, not sure if the latin church cared much for him. If he was a universalist (news to me) that seems to make him a heretical preacher like Origen. I actually thought his hang up was over the topic of essences and distinction in the Trinity. But once again I’m only a layman here.🤷♂️
Yeah, i dont think he is a universalist... from what i have heard. At the end of the day it is up to God who is 'in or not' there really is no reason for us to worry about such things. God is the final judge, all we can do is do what he told us to do.
I also strongly don't think he was a universalist, St. Maximus is my favourite saint so I of course wanted to see if the allegations are true and looking at his writings and broad theology, it seems very similar to the way people cite St. Gregory of Nyssa, both of whom are I think rashly cited as universalist (I haven't looked at others, apart from Origen, who certainly was). St. Maximus also isn't a universalist because he very clearly and consistently affirms eternal hell etc. Also, the western Church did take to Maximus, and don't forget his connection to Pope St. Martin. I think St. Maximus is one of the few Eastern-centric saints who actually is completely championed by the Western Church.
Agreed, I'm even more e of a laymen. I'm certainly not scholastically trained and have to listen to this more than once to get a comprehensive grasp of this. Nevertheless l have a long time at to go. I've only recently understood the essence energy distinction; including the human and divinity of the natures of our lord. I have to read many more eastern theologists including saints and monks to substantiate my true beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy. Regardless l grew up in the Greek Orthodox church and never had a problem with it, always had the same Holy liturgy. The problem is that now I'm close to being in my seventies and now all these issues are coming up for me now like ecumenism, old new calendar this and that. My father always told me, "God has eyes and ears on everything you do, but will only smile if you are humble with sincere humility."
Once you realise that 'hell' is not somewhere you go after you die, it all becomes more obvious. A merciful God who died for us but sends most human beings to eternal torment? Makes absolutely no sense. Gods judgement is nothing more than the consequences of sin that happens whilst alive. That is the fire.
“Human” does not appear in the King James Bible. Human is a legal fiction which describes the activity of man (earthling) while on earth. Do you own a hudog or hucat? Word was created in the mid 1500’s and is often used in conjunction with “person” which the state defines as an individual, corporation, government, trust, association, and many other legally created entities. You see we are actors in two worlds. One in the capacity of man (reality), and another as a legal person (fiction). Person means by or through the son. There are real persons,man acting by or through God’s Son and fictional persons, real man acting by or through his legal fiction (corporate or paper self). To operate through the legal fiction requires the signature of the living man to act as creditor for the fiction. When your fiction written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS is summoned to court, they are summoning the dead. Since the state created your person, a derivative of the man, they own it. Since they own it, they control it thus we are all slaves to the state. I believe the nation state originates in Rome.
That was a very interesting point regarding "the false incarnation". We give body to these principalities that become the manifestation of the false "gods" that promise to satisfy our most profound desires. That is precisely what is done in the sacrificial process in which the body of a human or animal is being offered for the god(s) as a physical representation of what is being done on a human level. Now, Christ, having defeated death and the prince of this world- the very one that is behind this principalities- liberates us from the bondage to this "false incarnation".
And, finally, the image of humanity as a whole, participating of the true incarnation, is very beautiful. Very interesting stuff!! Thanks.
11:04 “Sin as false incarnation…delusion or fantasy.”
Love this.
Love this…answers a lot of my questions. Thank you!
Reading between the lines, God only destroys in one way, one that brings about true creation, a resurrection?
I think God is more creative than needing to destroy created things or even elements of created things.
God is transformative and works to bring about (and restore) the love that was once there and has always been. It may be covered or masked by sin or hate or indifference, but God can-in a co-creative process with us-move us back into the fullest expression and actualization of love we once were.
I think this is necessary to keep our identities, our selves, in tact. If you destroy me or parts of me, I would cease to be of my self. I would be someone different. God takes me where I am, what I am, and in partnership with me, moves me back towards that divine, infinite love.
And I think God does that to all the creatures. And succeeds. Anything less would be tragic and on some level, feel like God has lost something of God’s beautiful creation. The infinite slightly less infinite, somehow.
Nicholas that was beautifully put and well thought out. It is by hearing the unadulterated Gospel that gives me the Courage to run to God's Judgement, and his Judgement is Christ. Self giving, co suffering unconditional love.
Highly recommend reading any/all of Tzamalikos books!
13:45 - 14:14 how is Nineveh destroyed & saved?
Such a great little section.
Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD). It reflects the general condemnation of Origenism and the specific rejection of universal restoration (apokatastasis) :
"If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and the monstrous restoration which follows from it, let him be anathema."The Fifth Ecumenical Council is known for condemning the teachings of Origen, particularly his ideas about pre-existence of souls and universal reconciliation (apokatastasis).
Condemnation of Origenism: One of the central controversies addressed by the Fifth Council was Origen's teachings. Though his name is not explicitly mentioned in the council's official acts, several of the "anathemas against Origen" (from an earlier local council) were reiterated in relation to his followers. The specific doctrine of universalism (apokatastasis) was considered a problematic part of his theology, especially his idea that even the devil and demons would eventually be reconciled.
The idea that the post-conciliar condemnations of Origenism were merely a fabrication or a political move of Emperor Justinian, and that the bishops of the Fifth Ecumenical Council were not in favor of condemning Origenism, can be challenged on several grounds, both historical and theological.
1. Historical Context of Origenism’s Controversy:
Origenism had been controversial in the Church for several centuries prior to the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Origen himself (ca. 185-254 AD) was a respected theologian, but some of his speculative theological ideas (such as the pre-existence of souls, apokatastasis, and allegorical interpretations of Scripture) were problematic for later generations of Christians.
The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) had already debated and rejected certain ideas associated with Origen, such as the pre-existence of souls. Thus, condemnation of Origen’s ideas did not begin with Justinian but had a long history within the Church.
2. Ecclesiastical Involvement Pre-Council:
Before the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 AD), Origenism had been a growing issue, particularly in monastic circles in Palestine. Several bishops and theologians, including Theophilus of Alexandria and St. Epiphanius of Salamis, had already taken a strong stance against Origen’s ideas in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.
In 400 AD, Theophilus of Alexandria held a local synod condemning Origen’s teachings, showing that opposition to Origenism was well-established in the Church long before Justinian’s involvement. This indicates that church leaders were concerned with Origenist teachings independently of imperial influence.
3. Bishops’ Endorsement of Anathemas:
While there is some ambiguity regarding the formal adoption of the 15 anathemas against Origen during the Fifth Ecumenical Council, evidence suggests that the bishops in attendance did endorse the general condemnation of Origenism. The anathemas themselves may have originated from Justinian, but they reflected theological positions that were widely opposed by the Orthodox bishops of the time.
In particular, Anathema XI of the 15 anathemas directly condemns Origen’s teaching of universal reconciliation (apokatastasis), which had been a serious theological issue. The bishops likely saw this condemnation as necessary to preserve orthodox teachings on the resurrection, final judgment, and eternal punishment.
4. Post-Conciliar Acceptance:
The broader Church did not reject these condemnations as merely a political move by Justinian. In fact, subsequent councils and Church Fathers accepted and reinforced the condemnation of Origenism. For example:
The Lateran Synod of 649 (convened by Pope Martin I) reaffirmed the rejection of Origenist ideas.
St. Maximus the Confessor (580-662 AD) and other influential theologians accepted and defended the condemnation of Origen’s teachings.
The Western Church, particularly through the popes, was involved in condemning Origen’s teachings. Pope Vigilius, while initially resistant to some of Justinian’s theological initiatives, eventually confirmed the decrees of the Fifth Council, including the rejection of Origenism.
5. Bishops’ Role in the Fifth Ecumenical Council:
The bishops of the Fifth Council were not merely passive participants in a political maneuver. They were active in addressing various theological issues, including the Three Chapters controversy, and while Justinian’s influence was significant, the bishops participated in the conciliar process and endorsed key doctrinal decisions.
The involvement of the Pope (Pope Vigilius, though in a complex situation) shows that the condemnations were not purely an imperial affair but had the involvement of Church leadership across the Christian world.
6. Theological Necessity:
From a theological perspective, the ideas of Origenism, especially concerning universal reconciliation and the pre-existence of souls, posed serious challenges to the orthodox understanding of salvation, resurrection, and the final judgment. Condemning these ideas was seen as essential to protecting the Church's teachings on these matters.
For example, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body and the eternal nature of hell (as taught by Jesus in the Gospels) was incompatible with Origen’s teachings of eventual universal salvation, including for the devil. Bishops saw the need to condemn these ideas to maintain the integrity of orthodox Christian doctrine.
7. Justin Martyr’s Political Influence Does Not Negate Theological Concerns:
While Justinian had political motives (as many emperors did in their involvement in theological disputes), his motivations do not negate the fact that Origen’s ideas were genuinely seen as heretical by the broader Church. Theological decisions were not simply imposed by the emperor but were debated and, over time, accepted by the Church as necessary for doctrinal clarity.
The fact that the anathemas against Origen were upheld by later synods, popes, and influential theologians across the Christian world indicates that the condemnations were not merely a political move but reflected a real and ongoing theological concern.
Conclusion:
The claim that the post-conciliar condemnations of Origenism were merely a fabrication or political move by Justinian does not hold up under scrutiny. Condemnation of Origen’s teachings had been a longstanding issue in the Church well before Justinian’s involvement. The bishops of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, while influenced by the emperor, were theologically invested in rejecting Origenism, and their condemnation of these ideas was reaffirmed by subsequent Church synods, theologians, and popes. Thus, the anathemas against Origenism reflect not just imperial politics but a genuine and broad-based theological rejection of certain speculative teachings that were incompatible with Christian orthodoxy. Pope Benedict XVI in Spe Salvi (2007). In paragraph 45, "There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love... In such people, all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell."
Very informative, thank you
Like the Jonah explanation!
One thing I wonder about - once God has torn down the false incarnation, and we have conformed to Christ, who is our perfect example, won't we all just be copies of Christ, resurrected, and identical in every respect?
Those who are wholly Divinized will be identical in Energy but unique in the receptive capacity of that energy. Each will receive according to his disposition so that, for MAXIMUS, the many variations of dispositions degrees are the many mansions to dwell in. Hence why star will very from star in glory as the Apostle says.
United Church of God is not universalist per se, but they do teach universal post mortem opportunity for all mankind.
I believe Maximus is a saint in the east, not sure if the latin church cared much for him. If he was a universalist (news to me) that seems to make him a heretical preacher like Origen. I actually thought his hang up was over the topic of essences and distinction in the Trinity. But once again I’m only a layman here.🤷♂️
Yeah, i dont think he is a universalist... from what i have heard.
At the end of the day it is up to God who is 'in or not' there really is no reason for us to worry about such things. God is the final judge, all we can do is do what he told us to do.
I also strongly don't think he was a universalist, St. Maximus is my favourite saint so I of course wanted to see if the allegations are true and looking at his writings and broad theology, it seems very similar to the way people cite St. Gregory of Nyssa, both of whom are I think rashly cited as universalist (I haven't looked at others, apart from Origen, who certainly was). St. Maximus also isn't a universalist because he very clearly and consistently affirms eternal hell etc. Also, the western Church did take to Maximus, and don't forget his connection to Pope St. Martin. I think St. Maximus is one of the few Eastern-centric saints who actually is completely championed by the Western Church.
@@IM-tl7qvwhat are people quote mining from St Maximus in order to claim he’s a universalist?
Agreed, I'm even more e of a laymen. I'm certainly not scholastically trained and have to listen to this more than once to get a comprehensive grasp of this. Nevertheless l have a long time at to go. I've only recently understood the essence energy distinction; including the human and divinity of the natures of our lord. I have to read many more eastern theologists including saints and monks to substantiate my true beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy. Regardless l grew up in the Greek Orthodox church and never had a problem with it, always had the same Holy liturgy. The problem is that now I'm close to being in my seventies and now all these issues are coming up for me now like ecumenism, old new calendar this and that. My father always told me, "God has eyes and ears on everything you do, but will only smile if you are humble with sincere humility."
Once you realise that 'hell' is not somewhere you go after you die, it all becomes more obvious.
A merciful God who died for us but sends most human beings to eternal torment? Makes absolutely no sense.
Gods judgement is nothing more than the consequences of sin that happens whilst alive. That is the fire.
Charles Williams All Hallows Eve - false incarnation.
“Human” does not appear in the King James Bible. Human is a legal fiction which describes the activity of man (earthling) while on earth. Do you own a hudog or hucat? Word was created in the mid 1500’s and is often used in conjunction with “person” which the state defines as an individual, corporation, government, trust, association, and many other legally created entities. You see we are actors in two worlds. One in the capacity of man (reality), and another as a legal person (fiction). Person means by or through the son. There are real persons,man acting by or through God’s Son and fictional persons, real man acting by or through his legal fiction (corporate or paper self). To operate through the legal fiction requires the signature of the living man to act as creditor for the fiction. When your fiction written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS is summoned to court, they are summoning the dead. Since the state created your person, a derivative of the man, they own it. Since they own it, they control it thus we are all slaves to the state. I believe the nation state originates in Rome.
Well, this reads like a mental collapse. Quick tip: Person comes from Latin “Persona” which regards an actors mask character in a play.