Zobel said:

---

I don't think we should understand the Father as having place-location. "Somewhere" implies "sometime" because for us place and time are fundamentally linked. Since we know God is not subject to time, He also cannot be subject to place as we understand it. It's a kind of figurative language. Heaven is not a physical place, it's not somewhere you can navigate to.

---

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the Bible does use place-location language when referring to God. Jonah 1:3 But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord (who dwelt in the temple)

Even today, Rev. 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple

As mentioned above, Jesus did ascend "somewhere" and now sits at the right hand of God.

Obviously, as you said we are also to understand in reality God does not have a place-location.
Ps. 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

I'm not even sure "omnipresent" is the best term since it's not apophatic.

It doesn't say that in Jonah. The presence of the Lord there is the Word of the Lord - the actual person Jesus Christ. "The Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands."

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

prolly because material hellfire is a false teaching

---

Agree. That was started almost solely by Augustine, put on steroids by Dante, and amplified by Calvin who showed what he believed God's character was by burning poor Servatus at the stake. Does not seem very Christ like to me.

---

I agree that we can't be certain of what hell is, but to say Augustine came up with ect hell is patently false. It was the belief of Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Tertullian and Irenaeus among others.

---

Here is a link discussing your post. I agree there were Church fathers before Augustine who talked of ECT hell, but Augustine was by far the biggest influence on the concept of ECT hell. Especially in the Western church.

https://www.afterlife.co.nz/articles/history-of-hell/

---

Quote:

---

This was almost a systematic case for eternal torment, and due to its length (compared with anything that had come before) and Augustine's major influence, it became the standard. It took some time for dissenters to again be heard with any significant volume against this backdrop.

But prior to Augustine, this was not the case. Yes, a number of Christians believed what is now the traditional doctrine of hell (although most modern believers would take issue with their literalness when it came to the fires). Many did not make their thoughts clearly known one way or the other.

---

Thank you for the article. From what I gathered, the author is saying that Augustine was the first to articulate a full defense of ECT hell in response to those teaching annihilationism. But he was simply defending what was the predominate view. The early church fathers may have not agreed entirely with the picture Augustine paints, but some sort of eternal punishment involving some sort of fire was the consensus.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-hell-there-is

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/what-did-early-christians-believe-about-hell/

---

Do not disagree. I think the fire will be a refining fire like Paul described where everything not in the Divine nature is burned away but the person is still saved.

I think the pain comes from remorse and sadness when we realize how we have fallen short. And also pain at completely losing our human pride and sin nature. Then we can be glorified and acceptable to God.

I believe it is ontological not judicial.

---

And this is a process we will all go through to some degree postmortem? Believers and non-believers alike?

---

I am not sure. And neither is anyone else. Paul seems to indicate it.

---

Perhaps the greatest suffering we can endure is a spiritual longing for God? Those souls who die in God's friendship but in need of purification suffer intensely because they long for God but are not capable of fully possessing Him. What can we do? We can begin the purification of our souls now. We can embrace our longing for God. We must realize that we do not yet fully possess Him and that He does not yet fully possess us because of our impurities; i.e. sin. This will be "painful" but is necessary if we are to be purified from all that keeps us from His perfect mercy.

Ideally, we should all embrace this purification here and now. Why wait? Try to grow in this purification. If we are willing to let ourself long for God and have Him as our one desire then our life will fall into place as we seek Him and as we discover more and more his Divine Mercy

Now, consider Colossians 1:24 and what Paul is telling us about completing what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ FOR THE SAKE OF HIS BODY THE CHURCH. Christianity is not merely an individualistic religion. We are a corporate religion. Jesus is our head but we are all members of the same body and as we purify ourselves we help to purify the mystical body of Christ and so our sufferings, if we embrace them, lead to our purification and our sanctification through kenosis and theosis, and in this we build up the mystical body of Christ.

Zobel said:

---

It doesn't say that in Jonah. The presence of the Lord there is the Word of the Lord - the actual person Jesus Christ. "The Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands."

---

I'm not following.

The Word of the Lord came to Jonah. The Word can touch people, be seen, talk, has feet. St John tells us that is Jesus. He didn't flee from the temple (it doesn't say that) he ran away from the Word.

Zobel said:

---

The Word of the Lord came to Jonah. The Word can touch people, be seen, talk, has feet. St John tells us that is Jesus. He didn't flee from the temple (it doesn't say that) he ran away from the Word.

---

I gathered that from:
2:4 Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.

2:7 When my soul fainted within me I remembered the Lord: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.

But that seems beside the point. What you wrote concerning the Father is also true for the Son, correct? The Most High God is Trinity.

No? The One God is not the Trinity. We believe in One God: the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth etc.

This is drifting rapidly into trinitarian theology proper.

Not everything said of the Father is true of the Son. The Father did not become incarnate, of course.

The Son is God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God. Theophanies don't limit the Son to one place-location.

I agree. "In the grave bodily; in Hades with Your soul, though You were God; in Paradise with the thief; and on the Throne with the Father and the Spirit it is You who fills all things, O Christ the Uncircumscribable"

Christ became Incarnate "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation". He didn't cease being divine or the Logos, with any of the powers and potentialities associated with that. He added to them the powers and potentialities of being human, which include everything proper to human nature - having a body, being in one place, thirsting, hungering, etc.

I think the issue here is that while the presence of the Lord can be especially in one place - in the cloud, in the Temple - we should not think that God is in one place, as if he were a thing that exists. And that means that when we talk about His heavenly throne we should not think of this as if it were a place like places are for us, the way we experience them.

There are some things about God that our words are incapable of relating. In the RCC, we refer to this part of the mass (consecration) where the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ- Mysterium Fidei or Mystery of Faith. Here is a LINK to a short article that traces this aspect all the way back to the last supper and up to the present liturgy.

I say that to note that we don't know some things and will have to accept it on faith. Heaven is such thing, in my opinion. Greater than we can imagine. If we are indeed infused body/soul - it would seem to be physical. How? I don't know.

Want to make sure this isn't misconstrued. This is basically the worst topic to talk about because it is the most fraught with danger of error and the place where error truly matters.

You often see an approach that begins with something along the lines of "God is one and He is also three" or "He is three and one at the same time". It implies there is a single essence that is behind the three Persons, or is related in some way to the Persons. But this seems to challenge Nicene Trinitarianism, because the symbol of faith speaks of One God the Father - not One God the Essence, or One God three Persons.

The Orthodox teaching is that we believe in the monarchy of the Father. For us, it begins with the Father. He is God. He is uncaused, unoriginate, and possesses the divine nature. We confess a monarchial trinity. The Son and the Holy Spirit are hypostases of the Father. The Father is a hypostasis in the sense that He is personal, but He is not a hypostasis of anything: not of the essence, not of Himself. He is the source and the cause (without regard to time) of the Trinity. The Son is begotten from the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Son is the perfect image of the Father, and the honor and worship given to the image passes to the prototype, the Father. The point of unity is the Father, who is the One God.

Zobel said:

---

I agree. "In the grave bodily; in Hades with Your soul, though You were God; in Paradise with the thief; and on the Throne with the Father and the Spirit it is You who fills all things, O Christ the Uncircumscribable"

Christ became Incarnate "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation". He didn't cease being divine or the Logos, with any of the powers and potentialities associated with that. He added to them the powers and potentialities of being human, which include everything proper to human nature - having a body, being in one place, thirsting, hungering, etc.

I think the issue here is that while the presence of the Lord can be especially in one place - in the cloud, in the Temple - we should not think that God is in one place, as if he were a thing that exists. And that means that when we talk about His heavenly throne we should not think of this as if it were a place like places are for us, the way we experience them.

---

I agree. A "place" to us has dimensions. But the Bible does describe a heavenly throne where the Lord sits and the angels worship. (Is. 6) Isaiah "saw" it. So how should we think about this "place"?

No idea. That's why there are limits to cataphatic theology. At some point you run out of things you can say, and you have to make sure you unsay things in order to avoid saying something that isn't true.

Zobel said:

---

No idea. That's why there are limits to cataphatic theology. At some point you run out of things you can say, and you have to make sure you unsay things in order to avoid saying something that isn't true.

---

Can God be limited by something he created? Seems the answer must be "no." Apophasis is a safer approach.

chuckd said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I agree. "In the grave bodily; in Hades with Your soul, though You were God; in Paradise with the thief; and on the Throne with the Father and the Spirit it is You who fills all things, O Christ the Uncircumscribable"

Christ became Incarnate "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation". He didn't cease being divine or the Logos, with any of the powers and potentialities associated with that. He added to them the powers and potentialities of being human, which include everything proper to human nature - having a body, being in one place, thirsting, hungering, etc.

I think the issue here is that while the presence of the Lord can be especially in one place - in the cloud, in the Temple - we should not think that God is in one place, as if he were a thing that exists. And that means that when we talk about His heavenly throne we should not think of this as if it were a place like places are for us, the way we experience them.

---

I agree. A "place" to us has dimensions. But the Bible does describe a heavenly throne where the Lord sits and the angels worship. (Is. 6) Isaiah "saw" it. So how should we think about this "place"?

---

At the risk of repeating myself the question to ask is not "where" is God but "how" is God, somehow instead of somewhere. Just my $0.02.

Zobel said:

---

Want to make sure this isn't misconstrued. This is basically the worst topic to talk about because it is the most fraught with danger of error and the place where error truly matters.

You often see an approach that begins with something along the lines of "God is one and He is also three" or "He is three and one at the same time". It implies there is a single essence that is behind the three Persons, or is related in some way to the Persons. But this seems to challenge Nicene Trinitarianism, because the symbol of faith speaks of One God the Father - not One God the Essence, or One God three Persons.

The Orthodox teaching is that we believe in the monarchy of the Father. For us, it begins with the Father. He is God. He is uncaused, unoriginate, and possesses the divine nature. We confess a monarchial trinity. The Son and the Holy Spirit are hypostases of the Father. The Father is a hypostasis in the sense that He is personal, but He is not a hypostasis of anything: not of the essence, not of Himself. He is the source and the cause (without regard to time) of the Trinity. The Son is begotten from the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Son is the perfect image of the Father, and the honor and worship given to the image passes to the prototype, the Father. The point of unity is the Father, who is the One God.

---

The Trinity is such a confusing thing to me.

Will you point me to some resources where I can learn about it more deeply?

As a Catholic who was raised Baptist, I feel like I have a muddled understanding of the subject.

Zobel said:

---

No? The One God is not the Trinity. We believe in One God: the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth etc.

This is drifting rapidly into trinitarian theology proper.

Not everything said of the Father is true of the Son. The Father did not become incarnate, of course.

---

See above

I think anything by Beau Branson I think probably a good start.

This may be good
https://www.youtube.com/live/QoRmd76vFc0?si=2ApGioKOYva9AzI8

It should be noted that there is some agreement between the EO and RCC on the relationship between the Father and the Son, but when it comes to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity- we start to diverge. Just want to point that out for reference.

For those interested in the RCC doctrine, Aquinas 101 is a series of short videos usually less than 10 minutes that have been produced by the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) that summarize various topics of our faith: Here is the one on the triune God:

For a deeper dive:

PabloSerna said:

---

It should be noted that there is some agreement between the EO and RCC on the relationship between the Father and the Son, but when it comes to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity- we start to diverge. Just want to point that out for reference.

---

Weren't the basics of the doctrine of the trinity addressed fairly early on in the church? Just surprised there is a separation there. I obviously don't know where each lands, but assumed that would be agreed to.

Yes, they were addressed early on. Simple as I can make it is the west started using something called the "filioque" which means "and from the Son" in the late 500s. There is evidence of the Latin fathers using the phrase, but it is troublesome in Greek, so two traditions developed based on linguistic differences. There is controversy over how it should be understood. It became the fracture point because of politics between western kings and eastern Byzantine emperors and because of the east's rejection of papal claims to supremacy.

The longer version starts in Spain. To teach against Arianism which makes the Son a creation a local council changed the Nicene creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. This was taken up in Spain, then by the Franks. It became a deal in the 600s because of a different theological issue between east and west, but simmered until the 800s when it started being sung during the Mass in the west. Things get weird after that - the theology is "set" but the matter becomes political.

In the 800s it really ramped up because the Franks under Charlemagne started accusing the east of (bizarrely) removing the filioque from the creed and accusing the east of heresy for not saying it. Pope Leo III in the 800s supported the theology of it, but did not support adding it to the creed because he said that was the product of the Holy Spirit in the councils. He famously put two silver shields engraved with the original creed (without the filioque) in Latin and Greek in Rome.

In the late 800s the east accused the Franks of heresy because of it (along with other differences in practice) and because of this it truly became a question of papal authority when Rome sided with the Franks and the east rejected Pope Nicholas.

It didn't become adopted in Rome itself until 1014 when the German king Henry II came to Rome to be crowned by Pope Benedict VIII. Henry had supported Benedict against an antipope, and was apparently unhappy about the difference in custom. Benedict had the filioque sung in Rome for the first time. This led directly to the Great Schism of 1054.

Zobel said:

---

Yes, they were addressed early on. Simple as I can make it is the west started using something called the "filioque" which means "and from the Son" in the late 500s. There is evidence of the Latin fathers using the phrase, but it is troublesome in Greek, so two traditions developed based on linguistic differences. There is controversy over how it should be understood. It became the fracture point because of politics between western kings and eastern Byzantine emperors and because of the east's rejection of papal claims to supremacy.

The longer version starts in Spain. To teach against Arianism which makes the Son a creation a local council changed the Nicene creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. This was taken up in Spain, then by the Franks. It became a deal in the 600s because of a different theological issue between east and west, but simmered until the 800s when it started being sung during the Mass in the west. Things get weird after that - the theology is "set" but the matter becomes political.

In the 800s it really ramped up because the Franks under Charlemagne started accusing the east of (bizarrely) removing the filioque from the creed and accusing the east of heresy for not saying it. Pope Leo III in the 800s supported the theology of it, but did not support adding it to the creed because he said that was the product of the Holy Spirit in the councils. He famously put two silver shields engraved with the original creed (without the filioque) in Latin and Greek in Rome.

In the late 800s the east accused the Franks of heresy because of it (along with other differences in practice) and because of this it truly became a question of papal authority when Rome sided with the Franks and the east rejected Pope Nicholas.

It didn't become adopted in Rome itself until 1014 when the German king Henry II came to Rome to be crowned by Pope Benedict VIII. Henry had supported Benedict against an antipope, and was apparently unhappy about the difference in custom. Benedict had the filioque sung in Rome for the first time. This led directly to the Great Schism of 1054.

---

That's a pretty fair summary from the little I know about it. Tragic no matter how you slice it. We need to pray for unity in truth.

Thanks Zobel.

This is kind of where I get hung up on tradition. If the Catholic and Orthodox traditions all stemmed from the very earliest days, in the most raw form of how the church operated and taught, that at least seems reasonable to pursue and maintain.

It is these things that get addressed or "clarified" centuries later. I just have a hard time coming to terms that the Church in 500 AD can further fine tune doctrine at that point, in the name of tradition.

Maybe I am missing something.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thanks Zobel.

This is kind of where I get hung up on tradition. If the Catholic and Orthodox traditions all stemmed from the very earliest days, in the most raw form of how the church operated and taught, that at least seems reasonable to pursue and maintain.

It is these things that get addressed or "clarified" centuries later. I just have a hard time coming to terms that the Church in 500 AD can further fine tune doctrine at that point, in the name of tradition.

Maybe I am missing something.

---

I agree with you. This link is pretty interesting. The Roman emperor Justinian was the primary cause of the discrediting of Universal Reconciliation. And it is questionable how pure his motives were.

https://www.amazon.com/Universalism-Prevailing-Doctrine-Christian-Hundred-ebook/dp/B00LYD3V7G/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1LLLCHLWLJHR3&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Oc1Y1gNtRo-p_8zozhaOoOvt5px1Kq_ArF5RDFGyewQ7rUQ004Z8JvRMx_hZL_i34Qnf3IIFtylKLc2cOXTmuXfklHJlEQImpjh_9Nn_Kc4.BxwJuZLZW5SO-84oS0qlP6fTmAcmcUDAadTKuIqOJPk&dib_tag=se&keywords=J+w+Hanson+universalism&qid=1737830225&sprefix=j+w+hanson+universalism%2Caps%2C206&sr=8-1

But then you might wonder why did theology, especially as regarding predestination and election, change so dramatically with the Reformation. Especially with Calvin.

Did something change Scripturally?

I understand the need for getting rid of corruption. But why the radical changes in theology?

Pretty good podcast on this exact point

https://www.youtube.com/live/2Dl9tNa7LrA?si=PdwppaOqLVGmg4vU

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thanks Zobel.

This is kind of where I get hung up on tradition. If the Catholic and Orthodox traditions all stemmed from the very earliest days, in the most raw form of how the church operated and taught, that at least seems reasonable to pursue and maintain.

It is these things that get addressed or "clarified" centuries later. I just have a hard time coming to terms that the Church in 500 AD can further fine tune doctrine at that point, in the name of tradition.

Maybe I am missing something.

---

I agree with you. This link is pretty interesting. The Roman emperor Justinian was the primary cause of the discrediting of Universal Reconciliation. And it is questionable how pure his motives were.

https://www.amazon.com/Universalism-Prevailing-Doctrine-Christian-Hundred-ebook/dp/B00LYD3V7G/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1LLLCHLWLJHR3&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Oc1Y1gNtRo-p_8zozhaOoOvt5px1Kq_ArF5RDFGyewQ7rUQ004Z8JvRMx_hZL_i34Qnf3IIFtylKLc2cOXTmuXfklHJlEQImpjh_9Nn_Kc4.BxwJuZLZW5SO-84oS0qlP6fTmAcmcUDAadTKuIqOJPk&dib_tag=se&keywords=J+w+Hanson+universalism&qid=1737830225&sprefix=j+w+hanson+universalism%2Caps%2C206&sr=8-1

---

This is not intended to be a comment on this book specifically because I have not read it, but I would point out that there was a time in the first 500 years when arianism was, to use the book's terminology, quite "prevalent" and was opposed by Saint Basil the Great and Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, but they were fighting from a definite minority position. Athanasius was heavily persecuted for his staunch defense of the Nicene declarations.

I mention that only to point out that prevalence in and of itself is no guarantee of orthodoxy. Retrospectively, prevalence might be a good indication that something is orthodox if it has persisted.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thanks Zobel.

This is kind of where I get hung up on tradition. If the Catholic and Orthodox traditions all stemmed from the very earliest days, in the most raw form of how the church operated and taught, that at least seems reasonable to pursue and maintain.

It is these things that get addressed or "clarified" centuries later. I just have a hard time coming to terms that the Church in 500 AD can further fine tune doctrine at that point, in the name of tradition.

Maybe I am missing something.

---

I agree with you. This link is pretty interesting. The Roman emperor Justinian was the primary cause of the discrediting of Universal Reconciliation. And it is questionable how pure his motives were.

https://www.amazon.com/Universalism-Prevailing-Doctrine-Christian-Hundred-ebook/dp/B00LYD3V7G/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1LLLCHLWLJHR3&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Oc1Y1gNtRo-p_8zozhaOoOvt5px1Kq_ArF5RDFGyewQ7rUQ004Z8JvRMx_hZL_i34Qnf3IIFtylKLc2cOXTmuXfklHJlEQImpjh_9Nn_Kc4.BxwJuZLZW5SO-84oS0qlP6fTmAcmcUDAadTKuIqOJPk&dib_tag=se&keywords=J+w+Hanson+universalism&qid=1737830225&sprefix=j+w+hanson+universalism%2Caps%2C206&sr=8-1

---

This is not intended to be a comment on this book specifically because I have not read it, but I would point out that there was a time in the first 500 years when arianism was, to use the book's terminology, quite "prevalent" and was opposed by Saint Basil the Great and Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, but they were fighting from a definite minority position. Athanasius was heavily persecuted for his staunch defense of the Nicene declarations.

I mention that only to point out that prevalence in and of itself is no guarantee of orthodoxy. Retrospectively, prevalence might be a good indication that something is orthodox if it has persisted.

---

I hear you but that is a totally different topic in my thinking. And I believe Ultimate reconciliation was much more accepted than Arianism.

It is amazing to me how Ultimate reconciliation gets the immediate thumbs down from most posters.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

It should be noted that there is some agreement between the EO and RCC on the relationship between the Father and the Son, but when it comes to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity- we start to diverge. Just want to point that out for reference.

---

Weren't the basics of the doctrine of the trinity addressed fairly early on in the church? Just surprised there is a separation there. I obviously don't know where each lands, but assumed that would be agreed to.

---

I suggest to take a deeper dive into why the Latins did not want to diminish the role of Jesus in this part of the Creed. The political fallout is one thing, but there is some real theology going on that I have come to believe the Latin Church got it right and it was an import development to a better understanding of the trinity, while still not fully understood (a mystery we still profess).

so you're saying the fathers at Nicaea were incorrectly diminishing the role of Jesus and didn't have a correct understanding of the Trinity? and we understand it better now?

Not now- as in 2025. Back around late 300's. Prior to Nicaea you have early church Fathers already writing about this from what I have read.


ETA:

"Of mine he shall receive" [quoting John 16:15]. Just as we have understood discussions, therefore, about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which He was of His own nature, and not as one substance giving and another receiving, but as signifying one substance. So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things given Him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given Him by the Son." - Didymus the Blind (The Holy Spirit, 37; A.D. 380)

"Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it of essence and proceeding from it." - St. Cyril of Alexandria (Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, thesis 34; A.D. 425)

ETA:

"Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Speech to a Symposium on the Trinity: Rose Hill College, Aiken, South Carolina, May, 1995).

But you said right there that the formula Nicaea would diminish the role of Jesus and that this was an "important development to a better understanding".

I don't see how this doesn't mean Nicaea 1) diminishes the role of Jesus and 2) is inferior to the understanding we have now.

I definitely believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son. That is what we profess and have been for quite some time.