Paul said it himself in Acts 16:31 to the Roman jail keeper, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." and later again in Romans 10:9. Jesus promises us that we "will not perish but have eternal life" in John 3:16. It's not arrogant or prideful to believe we are saved if God Himself has told us that we are saved from judgement in His word. It is pride to believe we save ourselves through our works alone, but that's not what Christianity teaches.
We pray for the salvation of all, and we trust God in hope - real, Christian hope, the kind that doesn't disappoint. In the end, it's up to Him to judge. _What we don't do_ is presume, even for our own salvation.
I think that this point is the most important, because what kind of mindset do we need to become better Christians? I would say that if we do not start moving to God there will NEVER be salvation, but also a deep hope and desire that all man will be saved eventually, but knowing that there is no laxity, that heaven will never be had with idleness. But that we hope, for man needs faith, hope, and love.
I think Christ is pretty clear about the narrow door. I think the perspective is to not be scared of this monumental challenge/journey, and to trust in God regarding all things.
Three seconds in and you already misrepresent universalism by defining it as the belief that no one will experience hell. You're not going to convince any universalist to change their minds by misrepresenting their views. At least read Origen if you're going to critique universalism.
@klausdalang4936 Hell is purgatorial. Everyone will be saved because everything will be subject to Christ. If someone has not willingly turned to Christ, they're not fully subject to Christ because their will is opposed to Christ. Philippians 2:10-11 NKJV - that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
We will be ressurected to live the eternal life enjoying the living pressence of God. That's it. If you like it you will call it heaven if not hell. This theological syllogism was what spoke to my heart when i chose orthodoxy .
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." It's almost as if words alone are insufficient.
Which is also why you cannot choose your own eternal destiny . You don't get to decide where you go in the judgement. It's Jesus who decides it, the mode of willing of one man..
This text is about the rejection of false Christians on the day of judgment. Jesus is saying that it is not enough to call Him Lord, He must in fact be your Lord. If we don't do what our Lord wants us to do, then He is not really our Lord, even if we call him Lord. These people that Jesus will reject "on that day" (the day of judgment) identify as Christians. For only those who identify as Christians call Jesus "Lord." As for this text being problematic for Universalism, it is not. No-one will ever be permitted into the kingdom of heaven without submitting to the will of the King of that kingdom. The bible clearly says that everyone will become subject to His will. Theres a decent Argument to make for Universalism , in fact the First christians were universalists
@@RaphaelDeppe-ey5fr Jesus is the apokatastasis..the resorting of all things, all man and all Israel..hes the head of all people , the church, Israel..everyone will become his people..people who believe in eternal damnation including imperial saints are liars.
I LOVE GOD JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH IS THE ONLY WAY TRUTH AND THE LIFE ALL PRAISE AND GLORY BE ON TO OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH ALL GLORY BE TO TO GOD THE SON WHO IS EXALTED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER FOR WE HAVE TO KNOW THE SON TO KNOW THE FATHER MAY WE WALK IN THE SPIRIT AND BARE FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT ☦️
Saying it's presumptuous to say all will be saved is an incredibly ridiculous statement. Not only do we have scriptural testimony (1 Cor 15:22, Phil 2:10, etc.) and Christian tradition (Isaac of Nineveh, Gregory of Nyssa, implicitly Basil and Maximus), we also have logic and rational thought on our side. And Christ, as the divine Logos, eternally proceeding from the Father, who structed the kosmos according to principles of divine rationality, must save all. It's just as presumptuous to say that most of humanity is being tortured by God in the fiery pits of hell, and for some ineffable reason, he is unable to save them out of a greater respect for human freedom (ridiculous). Any argument that is irrational can be easily rejected as anti-Christian, since anything not rational is not worth believing. Perhaps people who say apokatastasis is presumptuous should be Muslim, since Allah is irrational, inscrutable; but not Jesus. The God-in-Jesus is a rational God, and since the infernalist position is irrational, we can reject it without second thought. Here's a simple syllogism proving the illogical nature of infernalism: (P1) We are not perfectly free, (P2) A non-perfectly free agent cannot be held infinitely accountable for finite crimes, (C) Therefore, we cannot be held infinitely accountable for finite crimes/sins. St Paul believes all are saved. How can people under the earth proclaim Christ as Lord if they're being tortured? How can God be all in all if there are people of whom he gives up? What does it mean for God to create us out of a free act of love only to then infinitely punish his (not perfectly free) creation? This guy who said it's presumptuous to say God must be just needs to read about classical theism. God can't save all in the same way he can't make something metaphysically impossible occur, like 2+2 equalling 7. This whole video is an exercise is strawmanning and Wikipediaism. I encourage you and your viewers to do real research (i.e., read theology and the scriptures) instead of browsing wikipedia idly.
The Church is universal not universalist, meaning that anyone who is willing to seek Jesus Christ out of his or her free will with love and in repentance, regardless of age, sex, status, race, creed, shall be welcomed. For example, if I am actively engaging in LGBTQ+×÷-%$@, and even after joining the Church, I am still engaging in those reprobable activities, then I myself am not saved, but instead I have commit the sin of presumption. Meaning that I am deluding myself presuming that I have no need any longer to repent and humble myself before God everyday, because I presume God has already forgiven me for the rest of my life, and, therefore, I continue license to sin while at the same time I'm abusing God's mercy.
This isn't Universalism - Apokatastasis is solely about all sinners being refined and joyfully confessing that Christ is Lord; it does not give you a right to sin, any true Universalist would say so.
Yes, it still matters what you do - Universalism isn't about giving free rights to sin, it's about Christ redeeming all in Him - as St. Paul writes. When you die in sin you'll be refined like gold in the Lake of Fire - a metaphor for a literal crucible; where the Lord will test your heart.
@bluckobluc8755 It seems your comment has been deleted by UA-cam. Don't know if you can see this but here is my response to your reply: What a weirdly nihilistic thing to say; it still matters what you do - who in there right mind would think taking the hard way would be the same as the easy way? Who wants to get chastised for an age, when you can humbly admit you're broken, accept Christ and forgo such a thing? Also a sadistic thing to say; of course Heaven would outshine any horrors you've faced - do you think some people need to be broken still for Heaven to have meaning? Do not limit God's holy goodness. God is inevitable, whether we like that or not - and through His sacrifice at the cross, ALL will be in Him. As ultimate reality who can deny Him forever? Deny His wonderous love forever?
@@VirginMostPowerfull On the surface it look like that but the two are completely different: 1) being that purgatory is exclusive in who gets their sins purged. 2) it is an intermediate state, unlike Universalisms refinement being after Judgement.
In this clip, Dyer seems to think that you can't critically evaluate revelation using reason, only cower before the revelation's literal meaning, but this not how the authors of the New Testament or the Holy Fathers approached scripture or revealed tradition. He criticized the caller for acting like a trad Roman Catholic, but Dyer sounds a lot like a fundamentalist Baptist or Salafi Muslim in this clip. I like Jay and am not Hartian, but disagree with his reasoning here.
My impression was that he was criticizing the idea that you can critically evaluate revelation using *only* reason. This is in line with his critique of natural theology. That was what I got out of it, at any rate.
@@andreichira7518I don't know with what else you would evaluate revelation besides reason. Reason, or logic, is direct participation in the Logos, which is Christ. If a scriptural interpretation doesn't accord with reason, than it doesn't accord with Christ, regardless of the literal meaning of the text.
Dyer gives EO a bad name. He’s a clown with lots of hubris, thinking he has it all figured out. His popularity is with the young and arrogant (primarily men)
@@joshuadutrieux7874 I said only through reason. In other words, what the Church says is authoritative and does not rely on our independent reasonable interpretation of revelation.
You misunderstand free will brother: in tradition it is inseparable from telos (rather than this post-enlightenment view of libertarian free will). This is why apokatastasis was defended by St Gregory of Nyssa, St Issac, St Maximus, and many others. God reveals that He desires that all shall be saved. Does God get what he wants? Does God being ‘all in all’ mean anything? Also, Origen wasn’t condemned for apokatastasis. This is a very misleading reading of the council.
God wants nobody commit sins. But He already determinated satan and antichrist on the fire lake for ever. So not evrything goes as God wants, because first of all He wants everyone be free.
So this is all one big trial to see who does what just so everyone gets restored? I know some liberal minded EO (on reddit) have said things like, wanting people to be in Hell is actually crazy. And I personally think that's a weak rebuttal to the rejection of universalism. Honestly if we are all going to be saved but suffering just gets reduced if you're Christian, then why would someone like me who isn't Christian let alone EO (but deeply interested and still struggling with the belief) need to become Christian? Why even have ointment for a wound that will heal anyway with no infection?
@@unitx3k The primary focus of the early church's critiques of Origen's theology centered around doctrines, like his views on the pre-existence of souls and the nature of Christ. The formal condemnations against Origen primarily addressed his interpretation of the Trinity and the relationship between Christ's divine and human natures, rather than his teachings on universal salvation. Additionally, the concept of universalism was not uniformly defined or debated in the early church; it was by no means a niche view and was held by many contemporary Christians (including saints) who were obviously not condemned. Attributing Origen's condemnation solely to his universalist views oversimplifies the theological complexities of the time.
Kyle, I wait one whole week for you to drop a new video and cant wait to get home from the office to watch it and you made a video of 30 minutes of others. I want to see more of you if i go to your channel, because i like your style dude. If I want to say Jay, I go to Jays channel. Even on something important as refuting universalism.
David Bentley Hart's argument of what is freedom in All Shall be Saved refutes the only non universalist argument that people can freely chose eternal hell. Universalism is true.
I don’t think it’s at all heretical to think that hell is just not eternal and is a purification process that is agonizing and one doesn’t want to go to. It’s also silly to NOT be a hopeful universalist.
That doesn't make much sense. By sinning, we are choosing to live separately from God. Those who don't follow Christ pretty much just want Hell, as it is separation from God. So by going to Hell, God fulfills that request. Not to mention you can only be forgiven inside of time, when Hell will be outside of time. Also, people cannot be saved through Jesus when they are in Hell, as those people will have concrete proof, so faith is nothing.
I hope for universal salvation, and I'm afraid beyond any measurable stat of imagination that it is not the case. Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't St. John Chrysostom say something along the lines of tortured souls in hell intensify the pleasures of heaven? And is this not a saying of a psychopath?
Thomas Aquinas says something along those lines. But I believe that his idea is that those in heaven will be more happy because they're not in that situation, not because those in hell are suffering. But even then, it's still psychotic.
Yes, not only is it psychopathic, sociopathic really, it is fully sadistic. I'm sure it doesn't need explaining that God is neither those three things - He isn't Moloch, so it's safe to say that He hasn't designed the afterlife in that way.
@@colestockdale5616 "Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. That the saints may enjoy their beatitude more thoroughly, and give more abundant thanks for it to God" - St Thomas Aquinas in his summa theologica
@@ninjaofspades I can say the exact things about Infernalism or Annihilationism both of which deny God's omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and omnibenevolence. Apokatastasis is justified by the Church Fathers (St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nyssa for example) and by Scripture; like the sheep and goats sitting at the Left and Right Hand of God - both being places of honour.
@@danielpopoca-logue9779 how do you mean? Origenism was condemned mainly because of Emperor Justinian. And nobody is arguing for Origenism. They are arguing for universal salvation. Those aren’t synonymous. Origenism is multi-faceted
@@ItsThatGuy1989 Universalism is an origenist doctrine dude. Origen was condemned by his own bishop, by St. Pachomius the Great, St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Pope Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Augustine of Hippo, and countless more; all before St. Justinian condemned him.
@@danielpopoca-logue9779 Apokatastasis was not made by Origen, St. Clement of Alexandria espoused it before Origen ever did. Not only that, St. Paul too espoused it in his letters, John of Revelation saw and described Apokatastasis in action (the Lake of Fire) and Christ Himself taught it.
@@danielpopoca-logue9779 no it’s not. You think he alone came up with it? Also St Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist. The issue with Origen was that he believed souls were eternal and had weird ideas about angels. In the Acts of the Fifth Council which are essentially the primary source for conversations that happened at the council, Origen and Universalism were never even brought up.
@@ItsThatGuy1989 Nope; Origen’s universalism is explicitly condemned in Constan. II. The life of St. SABAS; written within five years of the council; says as such. I will say more when I get home.
The Bible says in many places that God is the savior of all, that there shall be no mourning in Heaven, that we shall love God with all our hearts and ALSO love other people (so we can't truly love God if he is too harsh with people), etc. Whatever view we end up with has to be compatible with all these verses. I'd say universalism is the best fit.
@@richardbruno201 Or is it "enter the Kingdom of Heaven"? Jesus could either be talking about the beginning of eternity, the "wedding day" (when the damned are in purgatory so to speak, according to universalism), or maybe he simply means the "highest level of Heaven", which the wicked, though saved, will never be able to enter. Or maybe he's talking about the "kingdom" of Christianity on earth. Many possibilities, just be creative.
@@richardbruno201 Yes? Not everyone will enter the Kingdom because most people reject God... but that doesn't mean they're barred forever - Universalism teaches that sinners will be refined by God in Hell/Lake of Fire. The Lake of Fire itself is a metaphor for gold refinement - you have the crucible, the brimstone and the pool of fire/lava; this is what John was meaning. Infernalists and Annihilationists deny Christ being the Redeemer of All and the Good Shepherd, whether they admit it or not.
The orthodox are just lying...just like thier godma. they think all universalists deny that some dont unherit the kingdom of god ....but her gates shall never be shut. Total opposite of eternally damned which would be the gates of the kingdom permanently shut to those outside.. @lordanglish
@@richardbruno201 It appears UA-cam has deleted what I wrote - if you see my first comment ignore this one. Yes? Not everyone will enter the Kingdom because most people reject God... but that doesn't mean they're barred forever - Universalism teaches that sinners will be refined by God in Hell/Lake of Fire. The Lake of Fire itself is a metaphor for gold refinement - you have the crucible, the brimstone and the pool of fire/lava; this is what John was meaning. Infernalists and Annihilationists deny Christ being the Redeemer of All and the Good Shepherd, whether they admit it or not.
Fr Stephen de Young’s argument that universalism is presumptuous is wrong. Universalism, like any other theological belief, is not telling God what he has to do, it’s revealing what Christ’s death and resurrection already means for our eschatology.
@@ninjaofspadesone can hold that hell exists and that not all will immediately go into heaven, but that hell is also finite. They aren’t mutually exclusive
@@ninjaofspades you do know the church does not have a dogma on universalism right? Origenism sure. But there are saints after the 5th council that believed universal salvation. Saint Isaac the Syrian is the famous example
@@ItsThatGuy1989 Universalism ignores those that reject God despite knowledge of Him. Will Satan be in the kingdom too? Will God force people to accept Him?
Don't get it wrong. Universalism is an option in Orthodoxy only, it is not an option in Catholicism. We've had more councils much more precise on the topic which completely ruled out universal salvation. The Pope recently made a new document where he says Jesus is the only way to salvation, distinguishing salvation from simply finding God. So his previous comments about all religions being languages was indeed made with orthodox intentions on his part and the so called popesplainers were right. You're welcome.
"A Christian without a cross is no Christian at all" -Saint John of Kronstandt
One of the best Russian Orthodox saints. Really
@orthoclipsICXC
How is that relevant to apokatastasis?
Isn't believing you are automatically saved itself a sin?
Yup, it's pride
@@TsarOrthodoxBro_II pride to believe jesus did all the work and saved me? or pride to believe that I can somehow work for my salvation?
@@TsarOrthodoxBro_IIso can you be sure of your salvation? Like can I know that if I die I will go to heaven? Honest question btw
@@Flame1500imagine having the audacity to think you know you are saved, no matter how great your works / salvation plan.
You’re not God. Period.
Paul said it himself in Acts 16:31 to the Roman jail keeper, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." and later again in Romans 10:9. Jesus promises us that we "will not perish but have eternal life" in John 3:16. It's not arrogant or prideful to believe we are saved if God Himself has told us that we are saved from judgement in His word. It is pride to believe we save ourselves through our works alone, but that's not what Christianity teaches.
He who appeases all, is he who appeases no one.
The love of a Father for His wayward children is not appeasement.
We pray for the salvation of all, and we trust God in hope - real, Christian hope, the kind that doesn't disappoint. In the end, it's up to Him to judge. _What we don't do_ is presume, even for our own salvation.
I think that this point is the most important, because what kind of mindset do we need to become better Christians? I would say that if we do not start moving to God there will NEVER be salvation, but also a deep hope and desire that all man will be saved eventually, but knowing that there is no laxity, that heaven will never be had with idleness. But that we hope, for man needs faith, hope, and love.
New Kyle heresy refutation just dropped, awesome.
☦☦
@Кивис-ч3й
“New Kyle heresy refutation just dropped, awesome.”
Yep, it dropped like the Protestant fairy tale of sola scriptura
I think Christ is pretty clear about the narrow door. I think the perspective is to not be scared of this monumental challenge/journey, and to trust in God regarding all things.
Thank you, Kyle. For defending the One True Church.
☦
@aethananimationjesusisgod2976
Mormonism?
Three seconds in and you already misrepresent universalism by defining it as the belief that no one will experience hell. You're not going to convince any universalist to change their minds by misrepresenting their views. At least read Origen if you're going to critique universalism.
So you don't believe everyone will go to heaven?
@klausdalang4936
Hell is purgatorial. Everyone will be saved because everything will be subject to Christ. If someone has not willingly turned to Christ, they're not fully subject to Christ because their will is opposed to Christ.
Philippians 2:10-11 NKJV - that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
@@inchristallshallbemadealive Purgatory is unOrthodox enough, now your making it even worse. This completely contradicts freewill.
@@inchristallshallbemadealive Purgatory is already unOrthodox enough, now you're just making it even worse. This completely contradicts freewill.
@@inchristallshallbemadealive Purgatory is already unOrthodox enough, now you're just making it even worse. This completely contradicts freewill.
w vid
We will be ressurected to live the eternal life enjoying the living pressence of God. That's it. If you like it you will call it heaven if not hell. This theological syllogism was what spoke to my heart when i chose orthodoxy .
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
It's almost as if words alone are insufficient.
Which is also why you cannot choose your own eternal destiny .
You don't get to decide where you go in the judgement.
It's Jesus who decides it,
the mode of willing of one man..
@@TheMorning_Son yessir
This text is about the rejection of false Christians on the day of judgment. Jesus is saying that it is not enough to call Him Lord, He must in fact be your Lord. If we don't do what our Lord wants us to do, then He is not really our Lord, even if we call him Lord. These people that Jesus will reject "on that day" (the day of judgment) identify as Christians. For only those who identify as Christians call Jesus "Lord."
As for this text being problematic for Universalism, it is not. No-one will ever be permitted into the kingdom of heaven without submitting to the will of the King of that kingdom. The bible clearly says that everyone will become subject to His will.
Theres a decent Argument to make for Universalism , in fact the First christians were universalists
@@RaphaelDeppe-ey5fr Jesus is the apokatastasis..the resorting of all things, all man and all Israel..hes the head of all people , the church, Israel..everyone will become his people..people who believe in eternal damnation including imperial saints are liars.
@@TheMorning_Son i agree with this belief of universal Salvation Jesus is truly amazing
God bless you Kyle!
I LOVE GOD JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH IS THE ONLY WAY TRUTH AND THE LIFE ALL PRAISE AND GLORY BE ON TO OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH ALL GLORY BE TO TO GOD THE SON WHO IS EXALTED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER FOR WE HAVE TO KNOW THE SON TO KNOW THE FATHER MAY WE WALK IN THE SPIRIT AND BARE FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT ☦️
Saying it's presumptuous to say all will be saved is an incredibly ridiculous statement. Not only do we have scriptural testimony (1 Cor 15:22, Phil 2:10, etc.) and Christian tradition (Isaac of Nineveh, Gregory of Nyssa, implicitly Basil and Maximus), we also have logic and rational thought on our side. And Christ, as the divine Logos, eternally proceeding from the Father, who structed the kosmos according to principles of divine rationality, must save all. It's just as presumptuous to say that most of humanity is being tortured by God in the fiery pits of hell, and for some ineffable reason, he is unable to save them out of a greater respect for human freedom (ridiculous). Any argument that is irrational can be easily rejected as anti-Christian, since anything not rational is not worth believing. Perhaps people who say apokatastasis is presumptuous should be Muslim, since Allah is irrational, inscrutable; but not Jesus. The God-in-Jesus is a rational God, and since the infernalist position is irrational, we can reject it without second thought. Here's a simple syllogism proving the illogical nature of infernalism: (P1) We are not perfectly free, (P2) A non-perfectly free agent cannot be held infinitely accountable for finite crimes, (C) Therefore, we cannot be held infinitely accountable for finite crimes/sins. St Paul believes all are saved. How can people under the earth proclaim Christ as Lord if they're being tortured? How can God be all in all if there are people of whom he gives up? What does it mean for God to create us out of a free act of love only to then infinitely punish his (not perfectly free) creation?
This guy who said it's presumptuous to say God must be just needs to read about classical theism. God can't save all in the same way he can't make something metaphysically impossible occur, like 2+2 equalling 7. This whole video is an exercise is strawmanning and Wikipediaism. I encourage you and your viewers to do real research (i.e., read theology and the scriptures) instead of browsing wikipedia idly.
Another Kyle W. ☦️
God bless you, brother.
I love father Stephen de young
1 view 1 minute. fell off
😂😂
The Church is universal not universalist, meaning that anyone who is willing to seek Jesus Christ out of his or her free will with love and in repentance, regardless of age, sex, status, race, creed, shall be welcomed.
For example, if I am actively engaging in LGBTQ+×÷-%$@, and even after joining the Church, I am still engaging in those reprobable activities, then I myself am not saved, but instead I have commit the sin of presumption. Meaning that I am deluding myself presuming that I have no need any longer to repent and humble myself before God everyday, because I presume God has already forgiven me for the rest of my life, and, therefore, I continue license to sin while at the same time I'm abusing God's mercy.
This isn't Universalism - Apokatastasis is solely about all sinners being refined and joyfully confessing that Christ is Lord; it does not give you a right to sin, any true Universalist would say so.
I just wanna ask if you have seen bart erhman? And what do you think of his lectures on the bible? Looking for an orthodox perspective...😅
Seconded
So if universalism is true, it doesn't matter if you are good or bad? Sinnful or Christ-like.
Yes, it still matters what you do - Universalism isn't about giving free rights to sin, it's about Christ redeeming all in Him - as St. Paul writes. When you die in sin you'll be refined like gold in the Lake of Fire - a metaphor for a literal crucible; where the Lord will test your heart.
@bluckobluc8755 It seems your comment has been deleted by UA-cam. Don't know if you can see this but here is my response to your reply:
What a weirdly nihilistic thing to say; it still matters what you do - who in there right mind would think taking the hard way would be the same as the easy way? Who wants to get chastised for an age, when you can humbly admit you're broken, accept Christ and forgo such a thing?
Also a sadistic thing to say; of course Heaven would outshine any horrors you've faced - do you think some people need to be broken still for Heaven to have meaning? Do not limit God's holy goodness.
God is inevitable, whether we like that or not - and through His sacrifice at the cross, ALL will be in Him. As ultimate reality who can deny Him forever? Deny His wonderous love forever?
@@lordanglish So, purgatory.
@@VirginMostPowerfull On the surface it look like that but the two are completely different: 1) being that purgatory is exclusive in who gets their sins purged. 2) it is an intermediate state, unlike Universalisms refinement being after Judgement.
Glory to God ☦️
Hope for universalism, but do t believe in it
@jakupsundoe6226
That’s like saying: Hope God is Father, but dont believe in it
👍
Hey kyle, i sent u a message on discord about nestorianism, oo and eo. Its very important because im figuring out if i should convert to eo or oo.
We have a record folks. Only 2 minutes of Kyle’s video is made by Kyle.
Catholic is two Greco grammar put together ( every and all ) deal with the reality as you see fit. Crying shame divorce happened, Sith happens.
My sister’s religion is literally the show “Supernatural” what do I do?
In this clip, Dyer seems to think that you can't critically evaluate revelation using reason, only cower before the revelation's literal meaning, but this not how the authors of the New Testament or the Holy Fathers approached scripture or revealed tradition. He criticized the caller for acting like a trad Roman Catholic, but Dyer sounds a lot like a fundamentalist Baptist or Salafi Muslim in this clip. I like Jay and am not Hartian, but disagree with his reasoning here.
My impression was that he was criticizing the idea that you can critically evaluate revelation using *only* reason. This is in line with his critique of natural theology. That was what I got out of it, at any rate.
@@andreichira7518I don't know with what else you would evaluate revelation besides reason. Reason, or logic, is direct participation in the Logos, which is Christ. If a scriptural interpretation doesn't accord with reason, than it doesn't accord with Christ, regardless of the literal meaning of the text.
@@joshuadutrieux7874 You are totally correct.
Dyer gives EO a bad name. He’s a clown with lots of hubris, thinking he has it all figured out. His popularity is with the young and arrogant (primarily men)
@@joshuadutrieux7874 I said only through reason. In other words, what the Church says is authoritative and does not rely on our independent reasonable interpretation of revelation.
👍👍👍
I agree with St Photios that St Gregory did not teach universalism
3:38 Basically Pascal’s wager.
You misunderstand free will brother: in tradition it is inseparable from telos (rather than this post-enlightenment view of libertarian free will). This is why apokatastasis was defended by St Gregory of Nyssa, St Issac, St Maximus, and many others. God reveals that He desires that all shall be saved. Does God get what he wants? Does God being ‘all in all’ mean anything?
Also, Origen wasn’t condemned for apokatastasis. This is a very misleading reading of the council.
???
Are not the anathema of Justinian against Origen also part of the sentence against Origen? The last one, attacks Origen's Apokatastasis.
God wants nobody commit sins. But He already determinated satan and antichrist on the fire lake for ever. So not evrything goes as God wants, because first of all He wants everyone be free.
So this is all one big trial to see who does what just so everyone gets restored? I know some liberal minded EO (on reddit) have said things like, wanting people to be in Hell is actually crazy.
And I personally think that's a weak rebuttal to the rejection of universalism.
Honestly if we are all going to be saved but suffering just gets reduced if you're Christian, then why would someone like me who isn't Christian let alone EO (but deeply interested and still struggling with the belief) need to become Christian?
Why even have ointment for a wound that will heal anyway with no infection?
@@unitx3k The primary focus of the early church's critiques of Origen's theology centered around doctrines, like his views on the pre-existence of souls and the nature of Christ. The formal condemnations against Origen primarily addressed his interpretation of the Trinity and the relationship between Christ's divine and human natures, rather than his teachings on universal salvation. Additionally, the concept of universalism was not uniformly defined or debated in the early church; it was by no means a niche view and was held by many contemporary Christians (including saints) who were obviously not condemned. Attributing Origen's condemnation solely to his universalist views oversimplifies the theological complexities of the time.
@@miuitest5272 I understand why you hold to this. God bless you!
They also reject sergianism😉
Saint Bulgakov
Kyle, I wait one whole week for you to drop a new video and cant wait to get home from the office to watch it and you made a video of 30 minutes of others. I want to see more of you if i go to your channel, because i like your style dude. If I want to say Jay, I go to Jays channel. Even on something important as refuting universalism.
Ortho-redditors may be perturbed😂😂
David Bentley Hart's argument of what is freedom in All Shall be Saved refutes the only non universalist argument that people can freely chose eternal hell. Universalism is true.
Sadly most Orthodox nowadays believe in a libertarian model of free will.
Whats the song at 1:10? also nice video, God bless brother.
roi (no joke thats the name)
@@oppositon324 ty brother, God bless
I don’t think it’s at all heretical to think that hell is just not eternal and is a purification process that is agonizing and one doesn’t want to go to.
It’s also silly to NOT be a hopeful universalist.
I hope annihilationism is true and that we got it wrong as a catholic but no our church believes in eternal hell
@@ItsThatGuy1989 Based and st Gregory of Nyssa pilled
As a Catholic I think that's heretical and impossible, but it does sound like a form of purgatory which I note.
@@VirginMostPowerfull you’re saying it’s impossible? How so? God can’t do it?
That doesn't make much sense. By sinning, we are choosing to live separately from God. Those who don't follow Christ pretty much just want Hell, as it is separation from God. So by going to Hell, God fulfills that request. Not to mention you can only be forgiven inside of time, when Hell will be outside of time. Also, people cannot be saved through Jesus when they are in Hell, as those people will have concrete proof, so faith is nothing.
I hope for universal salvation, and I'm afraid beyond any measurable stat of imagination that it is not the case. Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't St. John Chrysostom say something along the lines of tortured souls in hell intensify the pleasures of heaven? And is this not a saying of a psychopath?
Thomas Aquinas says something along those lines. But I believe that his idea is that those in heaven will be more happy because they're not in that situation, not because those in hell are suffering. But even then, it's still psychotic.
Yes, not only is it psychopathic, sociopathic really, it is fully sadistic. I'm sure it doesn't need explaining that God is neither those three things - He isn't Moloch, so it's safe to say that He hasn't designed the afterlife in that way.
@@theheckplays2252 Annihilationism is the truth
No, that is Tertullian, and he is not a Saint. St John Chrysostom did not say that, and I don't believe Aquinas did either.
@@colestockdale5616 "Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. That the saints may enjoy their beatitude more thoroughly, and give more abundant thanks for it to God" - St Thomas Aquinas in his summa theologica
Universalism is in the Greek translation and it'd what the early church believed.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
@@ninjaofspades You know this doesn't debunk Apokatastasis, right?
@@lordanglish you know claiming a belief doesnt justify it, right?
@@ninjaofspades I can say the exact things about Infernalism or Annihilationism both of which deny God's omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and omnibenevolence. Apokatastasis is justified by the Church Fathers (St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nyssa for example) and by Scripture; like the sheep and goats sitting at the Left and Right Hand of God - both being places of honour.
@@lordanglish I guess we'll see. I'll leave ot to God to decide
Unfortunately we can see all of the Origenists crawling out of the woodworks in this comment section.
@@danielpopoca-logue9779 how do you mean? Origenism was condemned mainly because of Emperor Justinian. And nobody is arguing for Origenism. They are arguing for universal salvation. Those aren’t synonymous. Origenism is multi-faceted
@@ItsThatGuy1989 Universalism is an origenist doctrine dude. Origen was condemned by his own bishop, by St. Pachomius the Great, St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Pope Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Augustine of Hippo, and countless more; all before St. Justinian condemned him.
@@danielpopoca-logue9779 Apokatastasis was not made by Origen, St. Clement of Alexandria espoused it before Origen ever did. Not only that, St. Paul too espoused it in his letters, John of Revelation saw and described Apokatastasis in action (the Lake of Fire) and Christ Himself taught it.
@@danielpopoca-logue9779 no it’s not. You think he alone came up with it? Also St Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist. The issue with Origen was that he believed souls were eternal and had weird ideas about angels. In the Acts of the Fifth Council which are essentially the primary source for conversations that happened at the council, Origen and Universalism were never even brought up.
@@ItsThatGuy1989 Nope; Origen’s universalism is explicitly condemned in Constan. II. The life of St. SABAS; written within five years of the council; says as such. I will say more when I get home.
stop the cap
Yeah, but your own patriarchs have all made universalist statements
Yeah but they're wrong.
You think we don't admit that our patriarchs are corrupt and heretical? we do
The Bible says in many places that God is the savior of all, that there shall be no mourning in Heaven, that we shall love God with all our hearts and ALSO love other people (so we can't truly love God if he is too harsh with people), etc. Whatever view we end up with has to be compatible with all these verses. I'd say universalism is the best fit.
Not everyone who says Lord Lord will inherit the kingdom of heaven. Yes we will not mourn In heaven but that doesn’t mean everyone will be in heaven.
@@richardbruno201 Or is it "enter the Kingdom of Heaven"?
Jesus could either be talking about the beginning of eternity, the "wedding day" (when the damned are in purgatory so to speak, according to universalism), or maybe he simply means the "highest level of Heaven", which the wicked, though saved, will never be able to enter. Or maybe he's talking about the "kingdom" of Christianity on earth. Many possibilities, just be creative.
@@richardbruno201 Yes? Not everyone will enter the Kingdom because most people reject God... but that doesn't mean they're barred forever - Universalism teaches that sinners will be refined by God in Hell/Lake of Fire. The Lake of Fire itself is a metaphor for gold refinement - you have the crucible, the brimstone and the pool of fire/lava; this is what John was meaning.
Infernalists and Annihilationists deny Christ being the Redeemer of All and the Good Shepherd, whether they admit it or not.
The orthodox are just lying...just like thier godma.
they think all universalists deny that some dont unherit the kingdom of god ....but her gates shall never be shut.
Total opposite of eternally damned which would be the gates of the kingdom permanently shut to those outside..
@lordanglish
@@richardbruno201 It appears UA-cam has deleted what I wrote - if you see my first comment ignore this one.
Yes? Not everyone will enter the Kingdom because most people reject God... but that doesn't mean they're barred forever - Universalism teaches that sinners will be refined by God in Hell/Lake of Fire. The Lake of Fire itself is a metaphor for gold refinement - you have the crucible, the brimstone and the pool of fire/lava; this is what John was meaning.
Infernalists and Annihilationists deny Christ being the Redeemer of All and the Good Shepherd, whether they admit it or not.
Fr Stephen de Young’s argument that universalism is presumptuous is wrong. Universalism, like any other theological belief, is not telling God what he has to do, it’s revealing what Christ’s death and resurrection already means for our eschatology.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
@@ninjaofspadesone can hold that hell exists and that not all will immediately go into heaven, but that hell is also finite. They aren’t mutually exclusive
@@ItsThatGuy1989 according to who's teaching?
@@ninjaofspades you do know the church does not have a dogma on universalism right? Origenism sure. But there are saints after the 5th council that believed universal salvation. Saint Isaac the Syrian is the famous example
@@ItsThatGuy1989 Universalism ignores those that reject God despite knowledge of Him. Will Satan be in the kingdom too? Will God force people to accept Him?
Catholics also reject universalism. This pope needs prayers and repentance, I have no pope splashing to do other then ask for mercy on this world
*popesplaining*
Francis is just the beginning. Those who follow him will be way more liberal than he is. Eventually Francis will get canonized I believe.
This has been happening long before Pope Francis.
Don't get it wrong. Universalism is an option in Orthodoxy only, it is not an option in Catholicism. We've had more councils much more precise on the topic which completely ruled out universal salvation. The Pope recently made a new document where he says Jesus is the only way to salvation, distinguishing salvation from simply finding God. So his previous comments about all religions being languages was indeed made with orthodox intentions on his part and the so called popesplainers were right.
You're welcome.
Salvation is universally offered but not universally accepted and lived.
I deny Jesus
3edgy5me
@@ISAYWORDS1 sadly not as "edgy" as the orthobros 😞
Oh ok!
@@sebozz2046you again bro? Take some rest to yourself
Then christ will deny you @@sebozz2046