Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter avemariagratiaplena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And as other people have said, we know some are in hell from that same source.

But for the third time, where is your source?
I just gave it to you. Its obvious that we are both reading the Catechism and coming to opposite conclusions. I am confident that mine is more consistent with Church teaching. I am merely saying that all can be saved. You seem to be saying that God requires that some people must be damned for eternity. I don’t believe the Church teaches that, and I don’t find it anywhere in Church teaching.
 
I am merely saying that all can be saved. You seem to be saying that God requires that some people must be damned for eternity.
Not all. As @Vico stated we know the demons are in hell.
 
Yes this is all about salvation for humans, I fully accept that due to their nature demons have thrown themselves head-first into the pit. It is sad but they did it
 
Does this then rely on interpretion a “what will” to be “what is”? Is that always true? I mean: Jesus says that the evil will go into hell, but doesn’t that have to rely on there being evil? Could it not just be the possibility? Same for the council statements that @Julius_Caesarhas mentioned

None of this has to do with denying that anyone (humans) in hell would be there for eternity, but if one is even allowed to argue (without infallible certainty) that no one even goes there (no one being humans)
 
And yet, no Apostle goes around saying the Athanasian Creed. It’s development of doctrine
Doctrine is not “developed”. It is confessed. Your statement here seems to indicate that at some point the Church didn’t believe Christ was the divine son of the Father come in the flesh to save us from sins, and that somehow, over time and contemplation we figured it out three hundred plus years later. That wasn’t the case. To be sure the Church responded to heresy by summarizing what it had always taught about Christ in confessions and creeds, but that doesn’t mean the doctrine didn’t exist. We can see from the apostolic documents that make up the scriptures that this is what the Church always believed and confessed.
 
Last edited:
That is the point of the thread, what dogmatic statement do you have to prove that it is heresy? So far we have Scriptural interpretation which can be disputed, and almost a dogmatic answer but it relies on interpreting “what will happen” as “what has/is happening” and I am not sure of that. Do you have some information not yet mentioned?
 
That is the point of the thread, what dogmatic statement do you have to prove that it is heresy? So far we have Scriptural interpretation which can be disputed, and almost a dogmatic answer but it relies on interpreting “what will happen” as “what has/is happening” and I am not sure of that. Do you have some information not yet mentioned?
Universalism was condemned by the Church as a heresy in AD 543 at the Synod of Constantinople. It was then ratified by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
 
Your statement here seems to indicate that at some point the Church didn’t believe Christ was the divine son of the Father come in the flesh to save us from sins, and that somehow, over time and contemplation we figured it out three hundred plus years later.
No. It just means the understanding wasn’t clearly stated in the first 300 years.
 
Does this then rely on interpretion a “what will” to be “what is”? Is that always true? I mean: Jesus says that the evil will go into hell, but doesn’t that have to rely on there being evil? Could it not just be the possibility? Same for the council statements that @Julius_Caesarhas mentioned

None of this has to do with denying that anyone (humans) in hell would be there for eternity, but if one is even allowed to argue (without infallible certainty) that no one even goes there (no one being humans)
Angels are not resurrected, so note that it is a dogma of faith that there is a hell for humans, some being unjust, as the Catechism 1035 states that “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity” and “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God”. And 1038 "The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the unjust,“623 will precede the Last Judgment.” 623 Acts 24:15.
 
40.png
Julius_Caesar:
You clearly said all.
I equally clearly meant all people. To the extent that you find me unclear, I am talking about the salvation of human persons, and not about either diabolic or heavenly creatures.
See that there are both just and unjust that will be resurrected and the unjust go to hell.
40.png
Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism? Philosophy
Angels are not resurrected, so note that it is a dogma of faith that there is a hell for humans, some being unjust, as the Catechism 1035 states that “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity” and “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God”. And 1038 "The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the unjust,“623 will precede the Last Judgment.” 623 Acts 24:15.
 
No. It just means the understanding wasn’t clearly stated in the first 300 years.
Docetic claim: Christ did not come in the flesh because the flesh is evil.

1 John 4:1-3 - Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

Yeah. No clarity there at all.
 
Anything like the Athanasian Creed? Anything against Partialism or Moralism?
Yeah. The Father’s quote scripture voluminously when refuting heresy. Like, there are entire books devoted to refuting error by exegeting scripture. Tell you what, let’s play a game. Read Against Heresies by Ireneaus and spin around in a circle every time he quotes or paraphrases scripture in his refutation of Valentinian Gnosticism. Let me know if you make it through book II.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. The Father’s quote scripture voluminously when refuting heresy. Like, there are entire books devoted to refuting error by exegeting scripture
That’s Interpretation of Scripture. That’s not a Creed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top