OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 03:56:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Universalism  (Read 7979 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Stavro
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 985


« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2004, 12:59:27 PM »

Peace Grigorii,
I knew it will come down to this: Hell mistakenly being taken to represent a blood-thirsty God, lacking in mercy. To have a solution that would fit our own idea about this merciful God, we have to imagine one who contradicts himself and lacks in justice, and in the process make ourselves comfortable with the idea that we will end up in heaven no matter what, sooner or later.

But some simple questions will need an answer:

1- When evangelizing others and telling them about the good news, what will an "Post-hell salvation" evangelist answer to a simple question posed by a non-believer: What if I reject the the salvation of the Cross ? The only answer that will fit in this scheme of dogmas is : "Well, you will spend a couple of years in hell and then we will pray for you and you will be up there in heaven , even though you rejected the salvic power of Christ, even though you committed sins without atonement,....it is cool.

Why evangelize ?

2- What about heretics like Arius &co. ? Will they find a way to the Kingdom ? Why did St.Athanasius waste his valuable time defending a side issue like the divinity of Christ if all men, by means of a couple of prayers, will end up in heaven ? Why the creed and Orthodoxy and christianity to beging with ? Why did you convert from Protestantism ? In any case, you would wind up in the Kingdom.

3- How does atonement work in hell ? The Catholics through the Purgatory have the purging fire, how do you lay out the process of atonement in hell ? Because just praying for a non-believer is not enough on earth if this non believer is not baptized, nor are the sins forgiven by just prayer without confession and communion. Are there sacraments in hell ?

4- To be consistent, it seems that the death of the Cross was just to deliver us from the shame of sin but not its penality.

5- Is there need for a sinful believer to repent ?

Peace,
Stavro
« Last Edit: September 03, 2004, 11:39:23 PM by Stavro » Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Stavro
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 985


« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2004, 02:12:27 PM »

Dear Grigorii,

Quote
There is no indication that God punishes for correction and healing during earthly life, and that he punishes for the sake of punishment in the life-after-death.
1- Maybe not for the sake of punishment, although that would be more consistent with your thesis.
2-We might discuss the question of suffering on earth as a separate topic.
3-It is enough that we know there will be eternal punishment.
4- There is no indication that there is salvation after death either.
5-
I will have to cite the verse again :
Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, cursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels’ (Matthew 25:41)
Now, what fate awaits people together with Satan in this eternal fire (according to the Holy Scripture) :
And the Devil who deceived them was thrown into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).
Again, it is forever and ever. It will be hard to prove quite the opposite, namely, that Satan also will be saved and his followers will end up in the Kingdom.
Quote
Forgiveness of sins, is probably the "easiest" aspect of salvation, the healing of our corrupted natures is much more difficult.
There is no small and big aspects when it comes to the work of God, nor is there an easy or difficult one. It has to be a whole complete work that contempliments itself in greatness, justice, mercy, omnipotence, omniprensence,...and all the Holy Attributes of the Divinity.
We get a new nature in Baptism, but it is  not incorruptable. Therefore, we sin, and yet, the sins we commit afterwards are forgiven by the Holy Sacraments.
Forgiveness of sins is very key to salvation.
Quote
He did not and does not need a sacrifice to satisfy His bloodthirsty anger, such is a pagan idea of God.
I assure you that this is not my idea about God. We are discussing how Divine mercy and Divine justice are fulfilled. But does God punish ? For sure, and there are tons of examples about this is both the OT and NT.
Quote
The Cross was NOT necessary for God
I would use the words of St.Athanasius the Apostolic. He wrote in his masterpiece about Incarnation that after Adam's sin, there was a divine dilemma.
God was NOT forced to find a solution, like a King who sees his son sinking in water and is also NOT forced to get into the water and save him. But his divine love and mercy had to find out a way consistent with his divine justice to save mankind. That is the dilemma and it was a brilliant solution.
Quote
But theoretically it is possible that someone chooses to remain with the pigs and eat their food.
You made a double-edged statement. It is true that the sinners and non believers decide to eat the pig's food, before they die, but the consequences are that God allows them to continue living out their choice in hell, after death. It is then a true choice.

It seems that we come from different schools that has long been separated and it needs time till we digest differences, although many are more clear than before.

Peace,
Stavro

« Last Edit: September 03, 2004, 11:40:00 PM by Stavro » Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Grigorii
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 43

St. Evagrios of Pontos


WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 04, 2004, 08:58:50 AM »

Dearest to Christ Stavro,

You still do not seem to grasp what really is involved in unlimited salvation, and continue to put one confusion on top of another. I will attempt a continuation of my explanation;

Why evangelize you ask,.. Well,.. it is a command given to us. Why is this command given to us? Because only by it can the world hear the Gospel of Christ and be saved by it. Universal salvation does not deny this, but depends on it!

Are heretics excluded from God's saving grace? Only inasmuch we all are; until we choose to be saved by Truth. Heretics are not more unworthy of grace as we are,.. we are all equally unworthy, and yet equally loved by God. Whether or not we are saved depends upon whether or not we choose to be. So, can they be saved? Yes of course! Everyone can be,.. Tho it is, at least theoretically, possible not everyone will be.

Atonement is rooted in and works by the Incarnation, Passion-Resurrection of Christ. How[/i] it works? I don't know. The dynamics of the afterlife are not readily accesible to me, nor is there any definite teaching on this in any dogmatic sense. All I know is that it ]is[/b] possible and that our prayers are essential to it.

Your theology of the Cross, or at least your attempt to ridicule a "universalist" understanding of it, is of course, precisely that. Ridiculous. The human condition after the fall is a complex whole. The main character of this whole is ' sicknes unto death'  the inability to experience God's love as love, and to suffer His love as pain as hell-fire. The Life-giving Cross becomes our death, wherein our incapacity to experience God as love dies, and the Glorious Resurrection is our new life, free from sin so we are once again capable of knowing God as He is and we are no longer endangered by the fires of hell.

Guilt is of course part of the human situation after the fall too, however, I don't think guilt (in this sense) should be taken as something merely juridical or economic. Rather it is a relational concept here. And, yes, the Life-giving Cross is cure to this too. Thru it we receive forgiveness of our sins.

And, yes, of course there is need for a sinning believer to repent.

It is surprising that you would need to ask these things; even if in relation to universalism. Universalism differs from the common perception of soteriology in once thing only,.. Salvation is not a partial success but a complete success.

You also appear to be confused by the term ' eternal', since you consistently interpret it as menaing 'endless duration' (aka 'bad infinity'). I think you will have great difficulty with St. Jeremiah the Prophet who announced eternal fire and eternal shame to come down, will be followed by restoration and healing (Jer. 17, 4, 27; 31, 38-40). Or St. Isaiah who also prophesied that the an eternal punishment is followed by restoration and healing (32, 14-15), further studies into the biblical concept of 'eternity'  reveal that it is not necessarily the equivalent of ' endless duration of time' , rather it can be used to signify the quality of something which has a limited duration in time. Eternity is a translation of greek and hebrew words that are far less suggestive as is our word ' eternity'.

Quote
You made a double-edged statement. It is true that the sinners and non believers decide to eat the pig's food, before they die, but the consequences are that God allows them to continue living out their choice in hell, after death. It is then a true choice.

There is no denial of true choice in extending the possibility of choice to the afterlife. Rather not to do so is putting a limit on choice and therefore closer to denial of it as the other.

Quote
It seems that we come from different schools that has long been separated and it needs time till we digest differences, although many are more clear than before.

Yes, it seems to be so. It is utterly unacceptable to me that prayers for the dead (those in hades) are to be removed from the Liturgy (and Coptic Liturgy is precisely an Orthodox Liturgy) because ' new insights'  conflicts with the traditional one. I cannot, but continue to pray for the dead as the Church calls me to and even further as the Church allows me to (for the extent to which i take this is not necessarily the same as other Eastern Orthodox, on the contrary!).

IC XC

Grigorii
Logged

If you have not yet received the charism of prayer or of psalmody, then ask perseveringly, and you will receive!

St. Evagrios of Pontos
mourad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


Mia, not mono!


« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2004, 01:21:24 AM »

I mean to say this in absolute humbleness and without any intention to offend to you, dearest Stavro: I think we should be more careful in taking on the responsibility of representing the "different school" that we claim to represent. If a liturgic phrase is present somewhere in the coptic offices, one should take time to understand why it is there, in light of the wealthy tradition layed down for us by our blessed fathers among the saints.

Insofar as i have read brother Gregorii, i have found no contradiction with a tradition that was present among certain fathers, we should pull these above-mentioned fathers and ecclisiastical writers (Origen is still a church father to me, though!) out, and see where they were going with all of this...

No liturgical passage is there without reason! The church would not allow a congregation to err so easily, and let its children worship in a "heritical" manner(why are we so quick to use that word, anyway?).

Removing a liturgical passage that has been there for centuries without REAL REAL REAL UPTIGHT GOD-FEARING CAREFUL CAREFUL CAREFUL APOPHATIC CAUTION is serious trouble; we might as well start altering scripture.

Please comment, dearest brother.
Love,
mourad
Logged
Stavro
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 985


« Reply #49 on: September 06, 2004, 02:53:08 AM »

Dear Mourad,
1- It is NOT a liturgical phrase and it was never included in any liturgy. It was in the prayer of "kneeling" which is prayed once a year on the Pentecoast, and the Holy Synod has deleted this phrase. How, when and why this phrase creeped into this prayer needs time and resources to research but as long deleting the phrase does not contradict the Faith but rather confirms Orthodoxy, it is a very blessed action.

2- With all respect to you, as I really value your opinions and like you as a nice and very kind person, I would take the Holy Synod decision over your opinion. You know how Traditional our church is, and if they found any of this ideas in the Tradition they would have never deleted the phrase.
Deleting a phrase also, by a Holy Synod decision, shows the gravity of it. It is among the ideas Origen was excommunicated for, whether he really wrote it or not, the idea is anathemized.

3- It is not a hot topic in the Coptic Orthodox Church as some try to falsely present it, probably intentionally. Ever read a comment by Pope Shenouda, H.G. The LAte Bishop Grigorius or H.G. The Late Bishop Samuel or H.E. Metropolitan Anba Bishoy ( to name a few theologians of our time) endorse the salvation after Hades idea? On the contrary, the idea is seldomly brought up because it was never even an issue on the people's mind and when it comes up, there is a definite :NO . NO SALVATION after death.
Don't take everything our dearest brothers say for granted. There is an ocean of difference between the OO and others.

4- Grigorii is representing ideas consistent with a Tradition he belongs too. His thing..... But it has no trace back in my Tradition (OO Tradition). Maybe the word Tradition needs to be defined, because not all lonely quotes and sometimes quotes alleged to great theologians are part of the Tradition.

Quote
No liturgical passage is there without reason! The church would not allow a congregation to err so easily, and let its children worship in a "heritical" manner(why are we so quick to use that word, anyway?).
It is NOT liturgical. As for heretical or not, I do not care as long as it is not part of my Tradition and as long as our Holy Synod took care of it. What does Pope Shenouda say about it ? What about Pope St.Kyrillos and many others theologians, saints, hierarchs look upon this issue ?

Me and you have a common ground, we have the same references and we have a totally different line of discussion other than with EO who are alien to our Tradition in many aspects. My reference and yours is the Holy Synod and OO Tradition.

I am never worried about our Church (OO Tradition) embracing any "new"ideas. We have simply many strong grounds that will make us stay till till the Second coming. It is not a coincidence that we survived 2000 years of persecution. Consult Raouf's post. This decision of the Holy Synod shows how careful we are in excluding ideas alient to the Faith and being consistent in it. This is not a concern, the concern comes from another area.

We (OO) reject Purgatory, and the idea presented here is almost the same, if not even more absurd. We have to be consistent, anything else is hypocrisy.  

It also shows how far apart OO and others are. There are Questions other than Christology that needs to be addressed like "EO Purgatory" (purged by prayers) and so on.

Peace,
Stavro
« Last Edit: September 06, 2004, 03:17:49 AM by Stavro » Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Stavro
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 985


« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2004, 03:03:48 AM »

Dear Grigorii,
Quote
Your theology of the Cross, or at least your attempt to ridicule a "universalist" understanding of it, is of course, precisely that. Ridiculous.
Thank you. I appreciate your kindness. As for myself, I did not ridicule your comments in any way and do not intend to do so.
Quote
Yes, it seems to be so. It is utterly unacceptable to me that prayers for the dead (those in hades) are to be removed from the Liturgy (and Coptic Liturgy is precisely an Orthodox Liturgy) because ' new insights'  conflicts with the traditional one. I cannot, but continue to pray for the dead as the Church calls me to and even further as the Church allows me to (for the extent to which i take this is not necessarily the same as other Eastern Orthodox, on the contrary!).

It is unacceptable for me as well to change the Faith to include ideas like the one you defended. It was NOT in the liturgy. It is unacceptable for me also to misinterpret the Bible and falsely claim such ideas as Salvation after Hell to be part of the Tradition.

Good luck in your prayers. May the Lord save (through your mighty prayers)  Arius, Nestorius ........

Thanks for the discussion.
Peace,
Stavro
« Last Edit: September 06, 2004, 03:19:08 AM by Stavro » Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
mourad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


Mia, not mono!


« Reply #51 on: September 06, 2004, 03:45:16 AM »

Hi again Stavro,

just wanted to say a couple of things,

first, the phrase is liturgical. the sagda liturgy is done after Holy Pentecost Eucharist divine liturgy, which means it is liturgical, so i don't understand why you don't acknowledge that.

Secondly, if a phrase 'creeped' into the above-mentioned prayers and was accepted for x amount of years, should the reasearch regarding that specific passage be done first in order to find out why/how/when it got there? Or should we delete it, maybe find out a reason to put it back? How would that seem to you?

the last thing i'd like to say here is that what Gregorii has brought up here is something you can find in our heritage, in our fathers. I never said i totally agreed with all he said - come to think of it - i don;t even know if he actually agrees with all he's said, all i know is that he has been trying to explain where this idea ok apokatastasis comes from.

oh! p.s. i wasnt challenging the holy synod, i was just bringing up a point on the editing of the liturgic phrase, you saying that you'll take the opinon of the holy synod over mine is actually kinda out of place, it's not at all what this is about.

anyway,
take care and God bless you,
your brother,
mourad
Logged
Stavro
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 985


« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2004, 04:18:33 AM »

Peace Mourad,
Quote
first, the phrase is liturgical. the sagda liturgy is done after Holy Pentecost Eucharist divine liturgy, which means it is liturgical, so i don't understand why you don't acknowledge that.
I do not acknowledge it because we define litrugy as a eucharistic rite. The "Sagda" is a "salah" and not a "kuddas". The glorifcation songs (madaye7) for example cannot be regarded as a liturgical rite and cannot be taken to define faith.
Quote
Secondly, if a phrase 'creeped' into the above-mentioned prayers and was accepted for x amount of years, should the reasearch regarding that specific passage be done first in order to find out why/how/when it got there? Or should we delete it, maybe find out a reason to put it back? How would that seem to you?
Both go together. It is not an either or question, it is simply a question of whether or not this phrase conforms to the Orthodox Faith or not. If not, it is deleted.
Quote
the last thing i'd like to say here is that what Gregorii has brought up here is something you can find in our heritage, in our fathers.

I do not agree.
1- As I said, not every quote by a saint (if truly he said it) is part of the Tradition.
2- What is beyond doubt that Origen has been criticized for such writings among other things and his excommunication was confirmed for those ideas. If you listen to H.H. sermon on Origen you will find out more about this issue and how H.H. refutes the idea.
Quote
come to think of it - i don;t even know if he actually agrees with all he's said, all i know is that he has been trying to explain where this idea ok apokatastasis comes from.
I am not discussing Grigorii's person because obviously he is a respected scholar of immense knowledge (and nice on top of it) and he has the right to defend what he thinks is true. I reserve my right to disagree.  
But the idea of Apokatastasis to me is very similar to Purgatory, even if minor details are different. If you reject one, you cannot accept the other.
In addition, I believe that is gives everybody a carte blanche to sin as much as he can as long as he will be saved in any case.

Peace,
Stavro
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Grigorii
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 43

St. Evagrios of Pontos


WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 06, 2004, 06:05:50 AM »

Dearest to Christ Stavro,

Quote
As for myself, I did not ridicule your comments in any way and do not intend to do so.

Forgive me my brother it seems I was mislead by the way I took your comment. The error is mine.

Quote
It is unacceptable for me as well to change the Faith to include ideas like the one you defended.

That would not imply a change,.. To exclude it is changing the Faith. Orthodox Tradition knows both theologoumena, the endless duration of the hellish-torments as well as the apocatastasis (implying an end to these sufferings).  Tho a great majority assume the former position, a small minority (myself included) embrace the apocatastasis as a theologoumenon.

Quote
It was NOT in the liturgy.

By your own admission that it is in the "the prayer of kneeling" sung at Pentecost (admitted once a year, but no less Liturgical for it; in fact it is precisely Liturgical and it confessess to the Faith of the Church undefiled and unchanged), it is.

Quote
It is unacceptable for me also to misinterpret the Bible and falsely claim such ideas as Salvation after Hell to be part of the Tradition.

To misrepresent, misquote, and to make false claims are equally unacceptable to me. I, nor the Fathers in whose company my soul is educated, have done this is suggesting a 'final restoration' (apocatastasis).

Quote
Good luck in your prayers. May the Lord save (through your mighty prayers)  Arius, Nestorius ........

Only the prayers of the righteous are mighty Stavro. I appreciate your high esteem of my attempts to prayer, but I assure you they are mere attempts at it, I am still learning to pray.  

Quote
Thanks for the discussion.

You're welcome



Note
Quote
t also shows how far apart OO and others are. There are Questions other than Christology that needs to be addressed like "EO Purgatory" (purged by prayers) and so on.

The EO, in general do not[/i] share my views concerning the final restoration. The EO merely allow softies, such as myself to hope and pray for the salvation of all. Prayer for those in hades do not imply universalism. Even the majority of EO's who disagree with my views concerning the final restoration, will agree with me in praying for the dead.

"But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or great ones for which - even though they have repented of them - they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe must eb cleansed from this kind of sins, but not by means of purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place (for this, as we have said, has not at all been handed down to us).

All such ones, we affirm, are helped by the prayers and Liturgies performed for them. with cooperation of the Divine Goodness and love for mankind. This Divine cooperation immediately disdains and remits some sins, those committed out of human weakness, as Dionysios the Great (the Aereopagite) says in the 'Reflections on the Mystery of Those Reposed in Faith' ( in The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, VII, 7); while other sins, after a certain time, by righteous judgments it either likewise releases and forgives - and that completely -  or lightens the responsibility for them until that final Judgment. And therefore we see no necessity whatever for any other punishment or a cleansing fire; for some are cleansed by fear, while others are devoured by the gnawings of conscience with more torment than any fire, and still others are cleanes only by the very terror before the Divine Glory and the uncertainty as to what the future will be.

And so we, entreat God and believe to deliver the departed from (eternal torment), and not from any other torment or fire apart from thoise torments and that fire which have been proclaimed to be forever.

Remission of sins is given in three forms and at different times: 1) during Baptism: 2) after Baptism, through conversion and sorrow making up (for sins) by good works in the present life: and 3) after death, through prayers and good deeds and tahnks to whatever else the Church does for the dead.

The first remission of sins is distinguished from the last by this; that the first is a remission of all sins in an equal degree, while the last is a remission only of those sins which are not mortal and over which a person has repented in life."

St. Mark of Ephesus "First Homily : Refutation of the Latin Chapters concerning Purgatorial Fire"

St. Mark is quite strongly opposed to the idea of apokatastasis, he goes so far as to suggest that St. Gregory of Nyssa's writngs (where this theologoumenon is abundently present) might have been counterfitted by 'Origenists' which serves to show that prayers for those in hades are not supportive of purgatory, rather it is based upon the rejection of purgatory.

IC XC

Grigorii
Logged

If you have not yet received the charism of prayer or of psalmody, then ask perseveringly, and you will receive!

St. Evagrios of Pontos
mourad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


Mia, not mono!


« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2004, 07:22:36 PM »

Dearest dearest Stavro,
 
Liturgy is any communial set as rite in the church, i.e. vespers, matins, eucharist, matrimony, midnight praise, all are liturgical, all of same caliber when it comes to the words that are to be used, all profess our faith... In no way am i saying that i agree that prayers can aleviate the state of those in hades(since tecchnically, OO do not believe that those who are not in paradise now are in Hell, just as differentiate between paradise and the kingdom after the second coming), but i am saying that much should provided when taking the decision to remove a phrase from our already instated communial prayers - that is all i am saying.

Logged
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2012, 07:38:17 PM »

Dearest to Christ CS,

What Bishop Kallistos is saying is that it may very well be that "hell" may not be the final answer. He keeps the way open that St. Gregory of Nyssa proposed in his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15, 28 that the Body of Christ will continue to grow until ALL are saved,..  No-one, not even the devil, is excluded in St. Gregorios' vision. Hope is useless if it is not also a realistic expectation.

Prayer for the dead is an expression of the power of prayer thru the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection of Christ,.. It is the "praying Pentecost to those deprived of it" so they too may be saved. St. Mark of Ephesus held a sermon at the false re-union Council at Florence where he gave an example how some saints, by their prayer, saved pagans and/or sinners for  hell who had not repented before they died.  The sermon is quoted extensively in Fr. Seraphim Rose's "The Soul after Death" and it represents EO theology neatly.

When we pray for the dead, as we've always done, we expect that our prayers are heard and that they are effective for good of those for whom we pray. I know this is currently a "hot topic" in the Coptic Church, but to us, EO, it is unacceptable that this be changed. Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev says:

"Several years ago I came across a short article in a journal of the Coptic Church where it stated that this Church had decided to remove prayers for those held in hell from its service books, since these prayers “contradict Orthodox teaching”. Puzzled by this article, I decided to ask a representative of the Coptic Church about the reasons for this move. Recently I had the possibility to do so, and a Coptic Metropolitan replied that the decision was made by his Synod because, according their official doctrine, no prayers can help those in hell. I told the metropolitan that in the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church and other local Orthodox Churches there are prayers for those held in hell, and that we believe in their saving power. This surprised the Metropolitan, and he promised to study this question in more detail.

During this conversation with the Metropolitan I expressed my thoughts on how one could go very far and even lose important doctrinal teachings in the pursuit of correcting liturgical texts. Orthodox liturgical texts are important because of their ability to give exact criteria of theological truth, and one must always confirm theology using liturgical texts as a guideline, and not the other way round. The lex credendi grows out of the lex orandi, and dogmas are considered divinely revealed because they are born in the life of prayer and revealed to the Church through its divine services. Thus, if there are differences in the understanding of a dogma between a certain theological authority and liturgical texts, I would be inclined to give preference to the latter. And if a textbook of dogmatic theology contains views different from those found in liturgical texts, it is the textbook, not the liturgical texts, that need correction."


Taken from:"Orthodox Worship as a School of Theology."

"On the one hand, it is impossible for one to actively repent in hell; it is impossible to rectify the evil deeds one committed by appropriate good works. However, it may be possible for one to repent through a ‘change of heart’, a review of one’s values. One of the testimonies to this is the rich man of the Gospel we have already mentioned. He realized the gravity of his situation as soon as found himself in hell. Indeed, if in his lifetime he was focused on earthly pursuits and forgot God, once in hell he realized that his only hope for salvation was God[76] . Besides, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the fate of a person after death can be changed through the prayer of the Church. Thus, existence after death has its own dynamics. On the basis of what has been said above, we may say that after death the development of the human person does not cease, for existence after death is not a transfer from a dynamic into a static being, but rather continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his lifetime."

Taken from: "Christ the Conqueror of Hell"

IC XC

Grigorii


The devil will not be saved though. Isn't that what the revelation says.?
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Tags: universalism salvation Origen Constantinople II 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.081 seconds with 39 queries.