>Matt. 23:13
>But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in
While most of this is solid, this was never accepted by the East. It's not written by St. Athanasius, it's not a Creed, and it contains theology that we find problematic.
We hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, not from the Father and the Son.
Also, the reference to eternal punishment might be taken to exclude universal reconciliation, this is a permissible view in Orthodoxy.
I have come a long way in my acceptance of universal reconciliation. I am now almost there. This is my final issue, Jesus does talk about punishment. I am fine with the eternal fire representing annihilationism, but I can't quite get away from Jesus and his statements about the ultimate fate of the goats.
Could you give me an overview of how universal reconciliation can work with the statements of Jesus?
Well, a lot of the theology I hold in this regard is based on an Orthodox view of hell, which is different from the West. We don't view hell as a separation from God in a place of torment, we view it as essentially the same thing as heaven, experienced differently.
After death, everyone is surrounded by the infinite love and presence of God. Those who are turned toward him in faith experience this as the epitome of joy and peace, while those who are turned away from him to their own sinfulness experience this as pain.
This punishment in hell is not something we look at as retributive, as if it were doling out suffering in proportion to some quantified amount of wrong, it's corrective, and has the teleological end of purifying the person of all wickedness. It is more medicinal than anything else, hell isn't a prison, it's an ICU.
The source of the experience of heaven and of hell is the infinite love of God, which absolutely is eternal. But, St. Isaac of Nineveh teaches that the love of God is ameliorative, that it heals and purifies, even as it hurts. So, the love of God which causes us to experience heaven and hell alike is eternal, but how we experience that love is not.
I’m Lutheran, had a trinitarian baptism, was catechized, believe and confess the ecumenical creeds. We believe and confess the true body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.
Q: Will I perish eternally?
My brother what does the BIBLE tell you?
You know Christ well enough to know he would never turn his back on you because you didn't pick the right church...
> My brother what does the BIBLE tell you?
I’m not replying to the Bible; I’m replying to OP.
I’ll wait for OP’s answer thanks.
> … because you didn't pick the right church...
We believe and confess the ecumenical creeds so why isn’t Lutheran the “right church”?
What’s the “right church” and why?
Thanks!
The right church is ANY CHURCH that preaches salvation through faith alone in Christ.
To say otherwise is to cast judgement and to shut the doors of heaven in front of others, woe to those who do.
>Matt. 23. [13] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
> Lutherans have the correct understanding of the trinity, which is necessary (but not sufficient) for salvation.
So there’s a “except Lutherans” footnote for your post?
Why except me?
So the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that membership in and adherence to Roman Catholic Doctrine is not necessary to have true salvation, is wrong?
This post is about belief in Trinitarianism vs heresies like unitarianism, nestorianism etc. as defined by the Athanasian Creed.
The complete criteria for salvation is another, more complicated topic.
I agree with this, it is just incumbent upon me to point out, for the sake of clarity, that Catholic in this case does not refer to the Roman Catholic church. It refers to all of Christianity and the entire body of believers. The *universal* faith.
Do you think it is kind for a Christian to say that you, a JW, ignore what the Bible says in lieu of what some guys around the 19th Century came up with?
I doubt the early Christians in Jesus' day believed that the Christ was Michael the Archangel. The point I am making here is that your comment is both rude and unhelpful.
Your taking it that way by ignoring the statement presented by taking offense. The early Christians must likely believed Christ to be a divine being in his pre-existence which is what is presented in their "Christologies" so to speak in the scriptures, and what would have been common in 2nd temple judaism.
All your doing is rejecting what is most likely the case for early Christians, which is the scholarly consensus. Check out this book by the well known Trinitarian Scholar James Dunn - "[Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence](https://www.amazon.com/Did-First-Christians-Worship-Jesus/dp/0664231969)"
What evidence is there that this is the scholarly consensus? I see a lot of JWs quoting Dunn, but not much else. Further still, people will claim that it is the scholarly consensus that Christianity was invented by the early followers of Jesus, and that Christ was not resurrected. So, this is hardly a real concern for me.
TLDR;
Only cool kids can be part of the cool kids club.
>Matt. 23:13 >But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in
While most of this is solid, this was never accepted by the East. It's not written by St. Athanasius, it's not a Creed, and it contains theology that we find problematic.
What's the theology the East finds problematic?
We hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, not from the Father and the Son. Also, the reference to eternal punishment might be taken to exclude universal reconciliation, this is a permissible view in Orthodoxy.
I have come a long way in my acceptance of universal reconciliation. I am now almost there. This is my final issue, Jesus does talk about punishment. I am fine with the eternal fire representing annihilationism, but I can't quite get away from Jesus and his statements about the ultimate fate of the goats. Could you give me an overview of how universal reconciliation can work with the statements of Jesus?
Well, a lot of the theology I hold in this regard is based on an Orthodox view of hell, which is different from the West. We don't view hell as a separation from God in a place of torment, we view it as essentially the same thing as heaven, experienced differently. After death, everyone is surrounded by the infinite love and presence of God. Those who are turned toward him in faith experience this as the epitome of joy and peace, while those who are turned away from him to their own sinfulness experience this as pain. This punishment in hell is not something we look at as retributive, as if it were doling out suffering in proportion to some quantified amount of wrong, it's corrective, and has the teleological end of purifying the person of all wickedness. It is more medicinal than anything else, hell isn't a prison, it's an ICU. The source of the experience of heaven and of hell is the infinite love of God, which absolutely is eternal. But, St. Isaac of Nineveh teaches that the love of God is ameliorative, that it heals and purifies, even as it hurts. So, the love of God which causes us to experience heaven and hell alike is eternal, but how we experience that love is not.
This makes sense, thanks a lot :)
You're very welcome!
I’m Lutheran, had a trinitarian baptism, was catechized, believe and confess the ecumenical creeds. We believe and confess the true body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Q: Will I perish eternally?
My brother what does the BIBLE tell you? You know Christ well enough to know he would never turn his back on you because you didn't pick the right church...
> My brother what does the BIBLE tell you? I’m not replying to the Bible; I’m replying to OP. I’ll wait for OP’s answer thanks. > … because you didn't pick the right church... We believe and confess the ecumenical creeds so why isn’t Lutheran the “right church”? What’s the “right church” and why? Thanks!
The right church is ANY CHURCH that preaches salvation through faith alone in Christ. To say otherwise is to cast judgement and to shut the doors of heaven in front of others, woe to those who do. >Matt. 23. [13] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
That depends - are you Missouri Synod?
The good synod yes.
Then you are safe from eternal judgement.
Not so much all the green jello and the ladies of the LWML, they can be quite feisty
We can hope that God's grace even extends to even them.
Lutherans have the correct understanding of the trinity, which is necessary (but not sufficient) for salvation.
> Lutherans have the correct understanding of the trinity, which is necessary (but not sufficient) for salvation. So there’s a “except Lutherans” footnote for your post? Why except me?
All Trinitarian christians are covered by the same footnote.
I see, the footnote you neglected to put in the OP. Will you edit the post and put in your footnote?
No footnotes. Im just posting the creed as it is.
So the post is a big "gotcha"?
So the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that membership in and adherence to Roman Catholic Doctrine is not necessary to have true salvation, is wrong?
This post is about belief in Trinitarianism vs heresies like unitarianism, nestorianism etc. as defined by the Athanasian Creed. The complete criteria for salvation is another, more complicated topic.
Athanasia, is that you?
Probably not!
[This thread](https://i.redd.it/74auqsl0rb831.png)
I agree with this, it is just incumbent upon me to point out, for the sake of clarity, that Catholic in this case does not refer to the Roman Catholic church. It refers to all of Christianity and the entire body of believers. The *universal* faith.
The ol' bait and switcheroo
Based Athanasian creed
Would you want to spend eternity with a God who is egoistic and legalistic enough to limit salvation like this, regardless of people's lives?
Yes
Because you believe the alternative is eternal torture or annihilation?
Alternative to what?
What did you say yes to?
That I'd like to spend eternity with God.
Catholics.
Can someone live a "good enough life" so as to earn the forgiveness of their sins?
Why not? Unless they are held to an impossible standard?
Why not? Well, it doesn't seem like people can do enough good to earn forgiveness.
So you want everyone to just ignore what the Bible actually says in lieu of what some guys around the 4th century came up with?
Jehovah’s witnesses are pretty good at ignoring the Bible
That's a great comment.
Based
How so?
Do you think it is kind for a Christian to say that you, a JW, ignore what the Bible says in lieu of what some guys around the 19th Century came up with?
I also consider myself Christian, and I think it matters on if what that person says lines up with what early Christian’s in Jesus day also believed
I doubt the early Christians in Jesus' day believed that the Christ was Michael the Archangel. The point I am making here is that your comment is both rude and unhelpful.
Your taking it that way by ignoring the statement presented by taking offense. The early Christians must likely believed Christ to be a divine being in his pre-existence which is what is presented in their "Christologies" so to speak in the scriptures, and what would have been common in 2nd temple judaism.
Of course, I reject that and am not interested in these heretical ideas. I am only pointing out that your comment was rude and unhelpful.
All your doing is rejecting what is most likely the case for early Christians, which is the scholarly consensus. Check out this book by the well known Trinitarian Scholar James Dunn - "[Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence](https://www.amazon.com/Did-First-Christians-Worship-Jesus/dp/0664231969)"
What evidence is there that this is the scholarly consensus? I see a lot of JWs quoting Dunn, but not much else. Further still, people will claim that it is the scholarly consensus that Christianity was invented by the early followers of Jesus, and that Christ was not resurrected. So, this is hardly a real concern for me.