R
rmcmullan
Guest
Whew! Thank you so much! Really.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
christianley
Guest
It seems to me many of the early Church Fathers accepted th doctrine that eventually everyone would get out of Hell so to speak. It was believed by St. Gregory of Nyssa and Clement of Alexandria for example. Origen apparently accepted it. It seems to have been the majority opinion until the time of Saint Augustine. That it would be included in a book accepted by so many of the early Church Fathers does not seem particularly strange to me. The real question would be why the doctrine was rejected by th 4th century church when it had such a wide acceptance prior to that.Wikipedia actually has a pretty fair summary of the struggles of the Early Church Fathers in defining the canon of the New Testamant, and mentions the treatment of the Apocalypse of Peter: Biblical Canon.
The Apocalypse of Peter was well known during the 2nd to 4th centuries. Now it exists only in Greek and Ethiopian fragments, not all of which agree with each other.
Two surviving parts of it draw the most attention: First are the exceedingly lurid and graphic descriptions of the punishments allotted to sinners. Second are the prayers to God of Peter and the righteous at the conclusion of the apocalypse. Upon seeing the hideous fates of the damned, the saved plead that the damned might be released from their torment in hell; these prayers are ultimately granted. This is not a release of souls from Purgatory; the still-existing fragments of this work do not seem to suggest that the released ones join God in heavenly glory.
Here is a link to the text and commentary of The Apocalypse of Peter
Happy reading!
Nan
I’ve always found this interesting:
tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalists.html
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thank you for the info. I remain impressed by your scholarly approach and well rounded knowledge of these things. I did briefly have a look at the text of the Apocalypse of Peter. It does appear to have been heavily interpolated, especially the longer Ethiopic fragments, hence not reliable enough for my liking. However, the tiny fragments quoted by the Early Church Fathers, mentioned at the beginning of the text (which are the most reliable parts from my point of view), do indeed have something in common with LDS doctrine. We believe that all children who die in infancy, regardless of the righteousness or wickedness of their parents, whether they were baptized or not, or the circumstances under which they were born, will go to heaven. The Apocalypse of Peter, as quoted by the ECFs, seems to agree with that. Ultimately, we do not have enough of the text of the document (and the ones we have are not sufficiently reliable), for me personally to be able to make a judgement as to whether it was authentic or not. You may be interested to know, however, that in modern LDS scripture the Lord has informed us that there are indeed many more such sacred texts that still remain to be revealed, and the Lord has promised us that at some future date they will be revealed, and I believe that that is indeed the case. Who knows, perhaps the (authentic) Apocalypse of Peter will be one of those.Regarding the Apocalypse of Peter:
It was mentioned in some of the Early Church Fathers lists of books considered worthy to be read during worship, however it did not have the level of support that the Apocalypse of John received, and ultimately fell into disfavor. . . .
I am quite sure that LDS doctrine does not agree in every detail with its closest Catholic counterpart. After all, our doctrines are derived directly by revelation form God, and not indirectly form the Catholic Church, or any other. However, they do come a lot closer to the Catholic position on many issues, than they do with the Protestant ones. On the points you have mentioned, here are some additional thoughts:You’ve got the Catholic position right. We make our choices now. In this teaching Catholics disagree with the Mormons. We don’t get an additional chance to repent after suffering the wrath of God in hell. It’s all the more important, then, that we get our spiritual act together as quickly as possible. . . .
- I agree that “we make our choices now”. That is what we teach as well. Those (like the Antediluvians mentioned by Peter) who are sent to hell, and suffer the wrath of God in the spirit world (like a purgatory), until they have paid the price of their sins, can at best redeemed in the Telestial kingdom. They go no further. To us, the ultimate salvation is in the Celestial kingdom, where God the Father and Christ dwell for ever.
- The idea that you can repent in the spirit world is not an excuse not do so in this life, for two reasons. Firstly, suffering the wrath of God in the spirit world until you repent is nothing to be looking forward to. It is still a pretty awful place to go to. I wouldn’t recommend you to try it! Secondly, even if you do, at the end of it the most you will get is a Telestial glory, not a Terrestrial or a Celestial one, which is the true ultimate salvation. So again, It is not something I would recommend you to try!
You are very wise not to! The Protestant fundamentalists first invented that line of attack against Mormons. Then they decided to extend it to Catholics; and finally they decided to extend it to anyone else whom they disagreed with, including their own fellow Protestants! If you were to go down that rout, you will be pulling the rug very firmly from under your own feet.And no, out of respect for the devout participants here, I am NOT going to get into an argument about whether or not Mormons are Christians.
zerinus
A
Allweather
Guest
My fundamentalist chromosomes won’t let me think thataway! Though, when I reflect on the merciful qualities of God, which I can only dimly perceive, I have moments when it does seem unlikely that very many frail humans will actually be consigned to Hell, and certainly not the ones who, say, join false religions without full knowledge and act of will.It seems to me many of the early Church Fathers accepted th doctrine that eventually everyone would get out of Hell so to speak. It was believed by St. Gregory of Nyssa and Clement of Alexandria for example. Origen apparently accepted it. It seems to have been the majority opinion until the time of Saint Augustine. That it would be included in a book accepted by so many of the early Church Fathers does not seem particularly strange to me. The real question would be why the doctrine was rejected by th 4th century church when it had such a wide acceptance prior to that.
I’ve always found this interesting:
tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalists.html
F
Frost
Guest
YHWH/ Adonaj/ Elohim is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, according to Christian revelation. John 8: 58. Jesus used the frase “ego eimi” which is the Greek translation of Hebrew YHWH. Also, we find that the first Christians confessed that Jesus is Lord (Adonaj) - Romans 10: 9Correct me if I’ve heard wrong, but I was told recently that Mormons consider all OT references to YHWH/Elohim/Adonai to actually be references specifically to Jesus instead of the Father.
The reasons given by the Mormons were:
If you’re Mormon, did I understand this right? And is there anything in the OT that affirms that YHWH/Elohim/Adonai actually means Jesus instead of God the Father?
- Jesus is united with the Father, therefore all references to one of them are actually references to both of them, and the OT writers just didn’t have a clear picture. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
- God the Father, as a being of “flesh and bone” (Mormon terminology), is Lord over a planet orbiting the faraway star Kronos which is the most important star in the universe, but God the Son a.k.a. Jesus, as a being of “flesh and bone” is Lord over our distant little planet here.
- Jesus was the firstborn of God the Father and his heavenly spirit-wife, and as such was entitled to a planet of his own to rule, namely Earth.
- Following the pattern set by God the Father giving Jesus exclusive authority over Earth, certain highly favored and temple-sealed Mormons who ascend to the Celestial third level of heaven can expect that they may also be given authority to become “gods” over their own planets.
If you’re not Mormon, how do we answer this from scripture? If you know of specific bible passages or theological references, that would be helpful. It is my understanding that our belief in a single trinitarian God says that of course Jesus has been one with God all along, even though Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob didn’t know of Him. However, as Jesus was unrevealed at the time of the OT, and the Father was also one in being with Jesus, then OT references to YHWH/Elohim/Adonai are more properly references to the Father instead of Jesus.
Help???
Nan
C
christianley
Guest
Ultimately, God is just. We will be punished for any sin which we commit for which we haven’t repented. There are those among us (myself included) who certainly deserve the wrath of hell. I have the hope through Christ that my sin will be forgiven. I extend that hope to all human kind without expecting this will be the case. At the same time it is hard for me to see how any sin committed would require the torture of hell without ceasing as punishment. I think there are certain things we have to just leave up to God’s mercy and justice.My fundamentalist chromosomes won’t let me think thataway! Though, when I reflect on the merciful qualities of God, which I can only dimly perceive, I have moments when it does seem unlikely that very many frail humans will actually be consigned to Hell, and certainly not the ones who, say, join false religions without full knowledge and act of will.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.