Is this teaching on hell OK or is it heresy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter noactionreaction
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheOldColonel said:
What specifically in Catholic doctrine forbids one to hold an opinion or otherwise speculate that, in the end, God might very well save every last human being who ever lived?
Click to expand...
He might. Individually. Not by saying, ā€œI rescind my Divine Plan and replace it with universal salvation.ā€
 
TheOldColonel said:
Indeed. Please excuse my blatant and reckless obtusity. But tell me. What specifically in Catholic doctrine forbids one to hold an opinion or otherwise speculate that, in the end, God might very well save every last human being who ever lived?
Click to expand...
LITERALLY Jesusā€™ words, as weā€™ve already pointed out numerous times.
Matthew 7:13
ā€œEnter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many."
Click to expand...
Destruction, in the context of this passage, clearly indicates Hell. Once you have passed through the gate of Hell, you are damned, for ever.

The only way for your position to be true is for God to redeem people after theyā€™ve entered Hell, which would contradict the eternal, unending nature of Hell which Jesus indicates at other points int he Gospels.

Your position is untenable per scripture.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
The only way for your position to be true is for God to redeem people after theyā€™ve entered Hell, which would contradict the eternal nature of Hell which Jesus indicates at other points int he Gospels.
Click to expand...
Iā€™ve yet to state any position on the matter. It appear youā€™ve overlooked this fact.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
He might. Individually. Not by saying, ā€œI rescind my Divine Plan and replace it with universal salvation.ā€
Click to expand...
Is this your citation? Itā€™s rather lackluster. Donā€™t you agree? šŸ˜Ž
 
Last edited:
Your vehement defense of the contrary position would indicate that you ascribe to it, or at least think it to be a viable alternative, which it is not.

If you do not believe in it, why attempt to defend it so ardently and so poorly?

Also, I have to love how you only reference the fact I said you had a position, and donā€™t actually concern yourself with the topic at hand or the meat of my response. A very common tactic among people who refuse to acknowledge that hey are wrong.
 
Last edited:
You make an unfounded presumption of my position and then scold me for holding a position which is merely your own presumption. See any problems with that logic? šŸ˜Ž
 
Not nearly as much wrong with that as with your continued refusal to address my rebuttal to the position /argument you have espoused, along with the fact that you have continually restated your concept as if it holds merit, all while refusing to address any of the rebuttals that either @Gorgias or I have made.

You are deflecting now, which is the act of someone not interested in actual discussion.

Whether you are or you arenā€™t, Iā€™m out of time for today, so I wonā€™t be continuing on in this discussion. @Gorgias , good luck.
 
Last edited:
I, like the Church, make no claim that I possess knowledge that anyone is in Hell. Nor do I claim to understand exactly how God saves human beings. Surely, you would admit that your knowledge and mine regarding such unknown mysteries is equal.

Though Iā€™ve said nothing more than this, you clearly think your knowledge of the unknowable is somehow superior to mine. Therefore, I must ask you once again how you know anyone is in Hell or the intimate details of how the Almighty judges human beings. How does one become so superior in knowing that which cannot be known? The Old Colonel must know. šŸ˜Ž
 
Last edited:
Because the council was called to deal with the three chapters, not the Origenism (the postion of apocastatasis which it dealt with as a side issue). Thatā€™s why the acts that were sent to Rome did not contain them. They only contained what was relevant to the summoning of the council. Itā€™s a known fact that orgiensim was condemned. At the time of the council it was troubling the religious faithful of Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
The wording of your argument is that of universalism, as we have already pointed out, ad nauseum. Either youā€™re not reading our posts thoroughly, or you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge this in subsequent posts.

The Church HAS condemned universalism, the position your are arguing about. It HAS spoken on the question.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Jesus clearly speaks of the dangers of Hell. He said, clearly that the path to Heaven was difficult and that many would be lost. The saints have, in no uncertain terms, told us that Hell is very populated. What you are saying, that God will, esentially, coerce the free will of all people into accepting Him flies in teh face of scripture. Itā€™s certainly a wonderful, comforting thought, but when Jesus spoke of Hell, the last thing he wanted was for us to be comforted.
Click to expand...
There are scholars who claim that the historical Jesus never spoke of ā€œhellā€ at all. Bart Ehrman has a new book coming out that will explain his view. The church has its stance, sure. But it is far from set in stone.
 
There are ā€œscholarsā€ who also think Jesus never existed. Pardon me for not taking them at their word.

The Churchā€™s stance is set in stone. There being people who donā€™t believe it doesnā€™t change that.

Also, in order to support that position, they would literally have to ignore every Gospel, at which point why do they even think Jesus existed at all?
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
There are ā€œscholarsā€ who also think Jesus never existed. Pardon me for not taking them at their word.

The Churchā€™s stance is set in stone. There being people who donā€™t believe it doesnā€™t change that.

Also, in order to support that position, they would literally have to ignore every Gospel, at which point why do they even think Jesus existed at all?
Click to expand...
No serious scholars of early Christianity deny the existence of the human, Jesus of Nazareth. The historical attestations are strong for his existence. From that point, the challenge begins to separate fact from legend.
 
Last edited:
That was kind of my point, there are a lot of people who donā€™t believe in Jesus forā€¦ who knows what reason. Similarly, people seem determined to remove ā€œJesusā€ from everything he said in favor of something that isnā€™t the real Jesus.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
That was kind of my point, there are a lot of people who donā€™t believe in Jesus forā€¦ who knows what reason. Similarly, people seem determined to remove ā€œJesusā€ from everything he said in favor of something that isnā€™t the real Jesus.
Click to expand...
Iā€™m sure thatā€™s true. What I am interested in is what most likely happened. That is the information that I search for. It is hard to find unbiased information. I look to history scholars, who are ā€œsupposedā€ to approach their work in as much of an unbiased manner as they can.
 
Thatā€™s the thing. Since when did people think it was more likely that Jesus didnā€™t say everything attributed to Him than that He did?

Thatā€™s what bothers me about this sort of research. They automatically assume that the Bible isnā€™t accurately portraying what Jesus said simply because they donā€™t agree with it or donā€™t think the Bible is a reliable source of information. They are ignoring what is literally the most wide-spread, well-attested document in the history of the world (for which there are more copies available from the time of its writing than literally any other pre-printing press work) in favor of something of their own creation, for which there is no evidence.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
Thatā€™s the thing. Since when did people think it was more likely that Jesus didnā€™t say everything attributed to Him than that He did?

Thatā€™s what bothers me about this sort of research. They automatically assume that the Bible isnā€™t accurately portraying what Jesus said simply because they donā€™t agree with it or donā€™t think the Bible is a reliable source of information. They are ignoring what is literally the most wide-spread, well-attested document in the history of the world (for which there are more copies available from the time of its writing than literally any other pre-printing press work) in favor of something of their own creation, for which there is no evidence.
Click to expand...
Historians have complex methods that they use. They donā€™t just throw something at the wall to see what sticks. Early Christianity is widely studied. I was shocked at the amount of time that is spent and complexity of the studies that are done. I am intrigued about what I continue to learn about the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top