Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just seems like a whole lotta research and C/P-ing and quoting for something that should be easily typed out if it's in your heart.
Not meaning this as a dig toward either side.
I'm sure each side feels strongly about their position.
The whole thread just seems over-analyzed, is all.....
Concerning Ignatius, Consider he also was one of the most important of catholic writers and was also one of those responsible for determining that the sabbath(Saturday) should be replaced by the lords day(Sunday) ...
Quote:
By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and some of the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.
A detailed but spurious account of Ignatius' arrest and his travails and martyrdom is the material of the Martyrium Ignatii which is presented as being an eyewitness account for the church of Antioch, and as if written by Ignatius' companions, Philo of Cilicia, deacon at Tarsus, and Rheus Agathopus, a Syrian. Though Bishop Ussher regarded it as genuine, if there is any genuine nucleus of the Martyrium, it has been so greatly expanded with interpolations that no part of it is without questions. Its most reliable manuscript is the 10th century Codex Colbertinus (Paris), in which the Martyrium closes the collection. The Martyrium presents the confrontation of the bishop Ignatius with Trajan at Antioch, a familiar trope of Acta of the martyrs, and many details of the long, partly overland voyage to Rome.
After St. Ignatius' martyrdom in the Flavian Amphitheatre, his remains were honorably carried back to Antioch by his companions, and were first interred outside the city gates, then removed by the Emperor Theodosius II to the Tychaeum, or Temple of Tyche which was converted into a church dedicated to Ignatius. In 637 the relics were translated to the Church of St Clement in Rome.
The letters of St. Ignatius have proved to be important testimony to the development of catholic theology, since the number of extant writings from this period of Church history is very small. They bear signs of being written in great haste and without a proper plan, such as run-on sentences and an unsystematic succession of thought. Ignatius is the earliest known catholic writer to emphasize loyalty to a single bishop in each city (or diocese) who is assisted by both presbyters (priests, a.k.a. elders) and deacons. Earlier writings only mention either bishops or presbyters, and give the impression that there was usually more than one bishop per congregation. For instance, while the offices of bishop, presbyter (priest) and deacon appear apostolic in origin, the titles of "bishop" and "presbyter" could be used interchangeably.
St. Ignatius stressed the value of the Eucharist, calling it a "medicine of immortality" (Ignatius to the Ephesians 20:2). The very strong desire for bloody martyrdom in the arena, which Ignatius expresses rather graphically in places, may seem quite odd to the modern reader. An examination of his theology of soteriology shows that he regarded salvation as one being free from the powerful fear of death and thus to bravely face martyrdom.
St. Ignatius is claimed to be the first known Christian writer to argue in favor of Christianity's replacement of the Sabbath with the Lord's Day:
“ Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.... If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny ... how shall we be able to live apart from Him? ... It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity — Ignatius to the Magnesians 8:1, 9:1-2, 10:3, Lightfoot translation. ” He is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning "universal," "complete" and "whole" to describe the church, writing:
“ Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation. ” It is from the word katholikos that the word "catholic" comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word "catholic", he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation "catholic Church" with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century.
On the Eucharist, Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:
“ Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 ” Saint Ignatius's most famous quotation, however, comes from his letter to the Romans:
“ I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God's sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God's wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ.— Letter to the Romans
Just seems like a whole lotta research and C/P-ing and quoting for something that should be easily typed out if it's in your heart.
Not meaning this as a dig toward either side.
I'm sure each side feels strongly about their position.
The whole thread just seems over-analyzed, is all.....
GodBless
We are providing evidences from other sources instead of relying on our own wits to determine the authenticity of either the doctrine of eternal torments or universal reconciliation according to the writing of the early church fathers ...
This isn't about what we think, so much as it is about what the evidences have to say. That is the reason for quoting other sources.
That's cool.
I'll have to read and catch up when my brain will let me, as I'm at work with too many distractions to comprehend most of what I'm seeing!
The writings of Irenaeus, particularly along with those of Clement of Rome and Ignateus, are the main writings among all those of the early church fathers which purport the legitimacy of the Papacy and especially of the Catholic clergy ( abcd Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005) ... Also I will here make note of Irenaeus' Mariology, as he did speak of the place which Mary, the mother of Jesus, did have part in the salvation of men, much as she is today perceived by the Roman Catholic Church to have.
Quote:
Irenaeus of Lyons is perhaps the earliest of the Church Fathers to develop a thorough mariology. In his youth he had met Polycarp and other Christians who claimed to have been in direct contact with the Apostles[citation needed]. Irenaeus sets out a forthright account of Mary's role in the economy of salvation.
Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin... By disobeying, Eve became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way Mary, though she had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses 3:22) [34]
According to Irenaeus, Christ, being born out of the Virgin Mary, created a totally new historical situation. [35] This view influences later Ambrose of Milan and Tertullian, who wrote about the virgin birth of the Mother of God. The donor of a new birth had to be born in a totally new [36]
Do we see in the writings of Irenaeus, along with the writings of Clement of Rome and Iganteus, the budding of the Roman Catholic Church orthodox dogma, such as the supremacy of the Clergy over the laity, as well as the legitimacy of the papacy, and the worship of Mary as matron of salvation? And these are the men whom mike quotes as the early Church fathers that he says prove that eternal torment was the original Christian Gospel handed down from the apostles. Remember as well, that Mike quotes 2nd Clement which contemporary scholarship has revealed to not have been written by Clement at all, but to have been is some ways a repeating of the Gnostic gospel of the Egyptians.
Do we see a trend here people? Do we see something working behind the scenes in the writings of these men and those writings attributed to them which hint at pagan concepts from the Egyptians and which took hold over all Christendom between the late 3rd century and the 6th century?
That's cool.
I'll have to read and catch up when my brain will let me, as I'm at work with too many distractions to comprehend most of what I'm seeing!
John 8 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come...........I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.
Now concerning Justin Martyr, very little need be said, as it is acknowledged that he was no scholar(though he thought himself to be one) in anything, and his lack of logic and his abundance of self contradictions stand out all to apparent when one studies his apologies and philosophy closely. However there is somethings that are of interest to those who are curious about his influences. Before he ever converted to Christianity, he had sought to be initiated into the mysteries of Pythagoras, but was refused for his lack of education in anything, but most notably all forms of math, music, and the likes ... Also he was not a learned man in any language, not even the Hebrew and Greek. It should also be noted that he defended heathen philosophers from the torments of Hell if they had pre-existed Christ, most notably Socrates. As he himself was very much an Hellenistic thinker/philosopher much bemused by the teachings and philosophies of the Greeks.
Also it must be noted again that Justin martyr, though contradicting himself as he usually did, did not believe in eternal torment, but in limited torments and then annihilation. The language he used obviously in contradiction with itself in multiple places ... The man was obviously confused in regard many things.
Quote:
Justin Martyr, A. D., 140, 162, taught everlasting suffering, and annihilation afterwards. The wicked "are tormented as long as God wills that they should exist and be tormented. . . . . Souls both suffer punishment and die."(76) (Dialog. *** Tryphone pp. 222-3. ) He uses the expression aperanton aiona.(77)(Apol. Prim cxxvii. ) "The wicked will be punished with everlasting punishment, and not for a thousand years as Plato asserted." Here punishment is announced as limited. This is evident from the fact that Justin Martyr taught the annihilation of the wicked; they are to be "tormented world without end," and then annihilated.
So which is it? Are wicked and unbelieving men to be punished with everlasting punishment? Or will they suffer limited punishment then be annihilated?
This man Justin, though apparently a true believe in Christ and loyal to his faith, was not a great example of Christian Scholarship or of scholarship of any kind but perhaps of some amalgamation of histories concerning the Philosophies of the Greeks. He was also obviously not a great exegetical mind, in that he often Contradicted himself in his understanding of Christian doctrines, many times in the very same writings.
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 11-17-2009 at 05:51 PM..
John 8 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come...........I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.
Jesus also said "God will have all mankind to be saved . . . for Christ ransomed all" (1 Tim.2:4-6) and "God is the Saviour of all mankind, specially them that believe. These things command and teach" (1 Tim.4:10,11) to the apostle Paul to tell us.
So, the Pharisee could not go up into the heavens where Christ went after His death. They would die in their sins. Christ did not say: "If you believe not that I am [he], ye shall die and go to hell for eternity."
You hypocrite. It is the likes of you who would lure those who are in need of salvation, into the false sense of security that they will be saved regardless of whether they make the choice to believe in Christ or not. And in so doing, some may not make the all important decision, and thereby be lost. [/color]
Again you are dishonest about what i and others here along with me say which is everyone will accept Christ as their lord and savior, if not in this life then after the resurrection and after they are saved by fire.
Phl 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
1Cr 3:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Quote:
You make the absurd statement, that by warning others of the need to believe in Christ for salvation, that I have a desire to deny others salvation. This is the kind of twisted logic that the universalist employs.
This is no twisted logic on my part. Because in the dispensation of the fullness of times everyone who has ever lived will believe and bow in worship of Christ and confess him as lord and they will be saved. However, you and those like you refuse them the opportunity to be purified by Gods fiery judgments and then finally to come to repentance and be saved saying that no one can be saved if they did not believe before they died, which the bible never claims in any part.
Quote:
And all you can do in your pathetic effort to defend your position is to do what the universalist does so well. Deny and ignore the facts, twist and distort those same facts, and then pretend that you have proven your position.
I have given far more evidences of my position from both scripture and from the early church fathers and even from more contemporary sources then you have ever given. I do not twist anything but instead i seek to reveal, like many others here, the true meaning of scripture which you and those from whom you have learned your false doctrines have so terribly misunderstood and taught.
Quote:
To new readers of this thread, make sure to read Post #1 to see that the early church did not teach universal salvation, but rather, they taught the correct Biblical view of eternal condemnation for those who do not believe in Christ
And to the very same readers of this thread i would remind you of the 15 different early church fathers(while mike only listed 4 who believed in eternal torment when in fact none of them could be said to have actually believed in ET but rather they believed in annihilation) who did in fact teach universal salvation/apocatastasis which i listed before and will list here again which proves that Mike yet again has been blatantly dishonest about the fact that most Christians in the early church both believed and taught the eventual salvation of all creation in the fullness of times.
15 of the early Church fathers who both believed and taught Universal Salvation/apocatastsis.
Also, it is a fact that not only did the very first Catechetical School of Christianity in Alexandria teach universal salvation/apocatastasis, but so did three others out of the six Catechetical schools of the early church, namely the schools in Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis ... While only one taught eternal torment, and that was the school in Carthage Rome.
Quote:
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 12, p. 96; Retrieved April 29, 2007. “In the West this doctrine had fewer adherents and was never accepted by the Church at large. In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”
* Seymour, Charles. A Theodicy of Hell. p. 25. Springer (2000).
* Ludlow, Morwenna. Universal Salvation: eschatology in the thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner. Pp. 1-2. Oxford University Press (2000).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
