"From this point onward, your opinion does not matter!"

[pcosmar]

Even saying that you do makes you guilty of the sin of pride.

That does sound a lot like an accusation.

and I spent enough time with Job to know better than to respond in kind.

But you are making it quite clear from whence you come.

[Sola_Fide]

That does sound a lot like an accusation.

and I spent enough time with Job to know better than to respond in kind.

But you are making it quite clear from whence you come.

Jesus made the *exact* same accusation against the self righteous Pharisees. And just like the Pharisees, you trust in your own righteousness before God, instead of in Christ's alone.

[pcosmar]

Jesus made the *exact* same accusation against the self righteous Pharisees. And just like the Pharisees, you trust in your own righteousness before God, instead of in Christ's alone.

another accusation..

and yet,, I never made those claims,, for which you accuse.

[Christian Liberty]

Why are you even asking the question? You know what he has said.

If being a "historical Calvinist" or "covenanter" or whatever leads you to be accepting of these false religions that spit on the sacrifice of Christ, then count me out.

I am not accepting of Eastern Orthodoxy. I did, however, want to be clear about what exactly he was saying. I've also never claimed either of those labels.

[Christian Liberty]

"for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."(Romans 2)

That isn't saying that people can be saved without Jesus Christ. The point of that passage is that even without the written law one still has enough by natural revelation alone to know he is a sinner and in need of salvation from outside of himself.

What kind of loving God would destroy and judge to hell those who did the good things which Christ commanded (the beatitudes) if they never heard or knew of Jesus Christ? Is God not just? Is He not merciful?

The problem is that your presupposition is nonsensical. What person can keep the beatitudes? To be clear, here I do not mean the ethical obligation of the believer, which he is continually sanctified toward, but rather the idea that someone could actually keep the beatitudes to a sufficient degree to atone for himself. I'm guessing this isn't actually what you mean, but at face value that's what you're saying, that people can either be saved through faith in Christ, or by doing what he commanded yet without faith. But really that renders the cross worthless. If you are even asking the question of how a loving God could send X person to Hell, I fear for your soul, because you don't even understand the justice of God, the holy wrath which all people are under save Christ's righteousness imputed to their behalf.

[bunklocoempire]

"America is mostly a Democracy, but our God runs a Theocracy and your opinion is not important" ~Bill Winston (paraphrase)
"From this point onward, your opinion does not matter!" ~Bill Winston (exact quote)
^^^
FYI: This is a TV preacher, not my local family church.

I have recently been looking into the deep "rabbit-hole" of faith, and need to know something:

• How does anyone believe in individual freedom, while accepting "slavery" to religion?

Note: There is, at least one, actual Bible verse which specifically asks us to be SLAVES to God and/or Jesus.

My/your opinion doesn't matter?
Really?
I am not trying to cause a bloody debate, but really do not understand how any self-identified Libertarian can be OK with being a SLAVE.

You gotta serve somebody. I can serve my flesh and blood and all that baggage, or I can serve Jesus. It's usually a mess of the two. I do a whole lot better for myself and those around me when I serve Jesus and eternal Truth.

I'm totally cool being a wanna-be-slave to Truth. Truth doesn't change like my flesh and blood changes (and continues to change) -seems like a wise investment. Practice it a bit and see what happens.

Is it free will for a flesh and blood to wanna serve a God greater than themselves? How about even admit a greater God? I can run away from it easy enough... or can I? It's like my opinion doesn't even matter...

[VIDEODROME]

Sola Fide should be a TV preacher

[hells_unicorn]

Limited Atonement is a crutch? There's something deeper than that? What is it, because I have no idea what could be deeper than that.

What is deeper than the gospel?

Sola, I'm starting to think that you wrote the book on poor reading comprehension, because you engage in it about as often as you post on this website. What I was talking about was people who simply learn the 5 points and then think they know the entire gospel. These are people who generally tend to push gross theological errors that are often associated with Calvinism, such as hyper-Calvinism, Free Grace Antinomianism, various strains of Legalism, and also monergistic sanctification as you have done.

Spend less time asking stupid rhetorical questions and more time listening and maybe you'll learn something, which I hope you will since you are proving to be one of the worst advocates of the gospel I've ever encountered while still managing to advocate for at least part of it.

[hells_unicorn]

The same way it was for 1500 years before the Reformers came and made new dogmas.

TER, how did the Reformers make new dogmas if by your own admission they have simply reiterated Augustine's position? Furthermore, how is Augustine's position in any way divergent from that of the Apostle Paul, or the Cappadocian Fathers for that matter? Of what I've read thus far of Basil The Great's writings, I don't see any real divergence. In fact, apart from a passing reference from John Cassian about a nebulous problem he saw with Augustine's views, I'm not aware of any eastern contemporary of Augustine's who saw a problem with what he wrote. In fact, prior to Pelagius' wrongful protestations, no one was complaining about Augustine's writings.

[hells_unicorn]

Really tough question I wish I didn't have to answer! Definitely above my pay grade! We know that God is Almighty and that nothing happens apart from His will. At the same time, we learn that Adam was made in His image and likeness, with freedom, responsibility and occupation. We know that God allows man to turn their back on Him and at the same time He desires all to come to Him and be saved. We understand that there is a plan of God, a divine blueprint and workshop, and that it will be fulfilled, and at the same time Christ says "How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!" (Luke 13:34)

We also believe that God is good and just. Thus we know He would not allow someone to suffer for the sins of another. That is why the son shall not pay for this sins of the father, for this is unfair and unjust and not good. We know we will not be judged for sins we didn't commit or even the nature we were born it (for Christ, having raised from the dead, has destroyed bodily death and made resurrection possible for everyone, Saint and sinner). (BTW, the doctrine of Original Sin by St. Augustine is different from the teachings of the earlier Saints. We do not share in the guilt or responsibility of Adam's sin. That is why we are regenerated in baptism, and the original sin is destroyed. Nevertheless, we share in the sinful condition, because ontologically, we are born as children of Adam, but after baptism, our sins are our own and Adam's sins are his. Each will give an account before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and pointing our fingers at another (such as Adam) is exactly what Adam did which caused him to be fasted out of paradise).

So how our collective choices will ultimately conform with God's eternal will is a mystery. Human logic cannot apprehend it or understand it. Human words and terms cannot define it or reveal. It is something which can only be revealed in the heart of a person who has been illuminated by the Holy Spirit. And since I am not such a person, I look towards the teachings of those who are Saints. From how I am reading your question, they proclaim it a mystery. Perhaps in the end it will do something with the multiple universe theories which scientists are hypothesizing these days, I have no idea! The best I can personally do is bow down before the feet of God.

Your issues with Augustine seems less to do with what he said and more so with how he said it. On the one hand, you have affirmed Augustine's position that men suffer mortality on account of an ancestral link to Adam and consequently his Fall, yet you don't seem to care for the notion that there is an accountability attached to the metaphysical character of sin, despite that it is the culprit in the actual sins of each individual. This seems to me to be more of a quibble about denoting the character of cause and effect and less a real disagreement about man's fallen state and the necessity of Christ in correcting this eventuality.

The Orthodox Church does not teach that "freedom of will is lost on account of sin". This is the ripe fruits of Augustinian theology which the eastern Church never proclaimed. The Scots Confession took the extreme position that the Fall fully eradicated the divine image from human nature: “By this transgression, generally known as original sin, the image of God was utterly defaced in man, and he and his children became by nature hostile to God, slaves to Satan, and servants to sin.” This is not consistent with th theology of the early Church Fathers, which taught that man, though sick and dying, has not lost the image of God in them, which includes reason and free will. Yes, they are corrupted and unhealthy at times, but these attributes which make a human a human still exist, though powered over by death and sin.

Augustine and the Scots did not teach that man lost the "Image" of God (this would carry implications for murder not being an offense to God since there would be no image of Him to strike at), but rather that the "Likeness" of God, ergo the moral efficacy, has been lost. There is language throughout the OT about the evil imaginations of men, perhaps best displayed in Genesis 8:21. If Christ's blood is not necessary in restoring Man's heart to a state of goodness, it stands to reason that Christ would not have used exclusive language as he did in John 14:6. Furthermore, as Paul himself stated, we are not merely sick and dying in trespasses and sins, but dead in them as noted in Ephesians 2:1-5 and Colossians 2:13.

[Christian Liberty]

Limited Atonement is a crutch? There's something deeper than that? What is it, because I have no idea what could be deeper than that.

What is deeper than the gospel?

He's talking about people who just take the 5 points and don't go any deeper than that, ignoring things like the RPW, covenant theology/covenant baptism, the sabbath, the law of God, Biblical ecclesiology, etc.

[Sola_Fide]

He's talking about people who just take the 5 points and don't go any deeper than that, ignoring things like the RPW, covenant theology/covenant baptism, the sabbath, the law of God, Biblical ecclesiology, etc.

None of that is the gospel. There's nothing deeper than who God is and what He did in salvation.

[Sola_Fide]

Sola Fide should be a TV preacher

No thanks. No one listens to the gospel. People tune in to TV preachers to hear something other than the gospel.

[TER]

That isn't saying that people can be saved without Jesus Christ. The point of that passage is that even without the written law one still has enough by natural revelation alone to know he is a sinner and in need of salvation from outside of himself.

Yes, the written law in their hearts, what you call "natural revelation". Their aligning with good and right makes them righteous even though they had no idea about Jewish dictates and traditions (that is, the Torah). They fulfilled parts of the law not under the specific dictates and traditions of the Torah, but a new law, ("a law unto themselves").

They showed the work of the law written in their hearts by the good deeds they did, "who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality".

Let's look at the chapter more in context to get a better understanding...

Romans 2

1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

St. Paul is calling out the hyocrites who like to judge others while they wallow in the same passions and sins.

2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

St. Paul is warning the hypocrites that they will find judgment for the evils they did as well, even if they claim to be faithful in God or members of His Church. He is also underscoring here that goodness of God leads man to repentance, which is the disposition every man must have in order to advance to Christ.

5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:

Our actions, our words, our deeds have meaning and consequence with regards to God's holy judgment.

7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

St. Paul is pretty straight forward here: we reap what we sow

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law,

The law (Torah) as the Jews living in Rome knew would not apply to those who sinned without the law (Torah). A man will not be condemned for true blameless ignorance which was not their fault. Like who, for example? Like a child who died young in central Africa before Moses was born. And there are many others, indeed large numbers, who according to their specific circumstances, did not receive the law of God as Moses did or the traditions he and the other Prophets handed down. For a just God would not condemn a person because of things not in their control, like where they were born and what era. Rather, He will wisely judge them according to "the law of their-selves", whether they did evil or whether they did good. God knows their hearts and will judge them according to His Wisdom and Mercy, and knows who would have kept the laws righteously if they had the opportunity.

...as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law

(those, however, who have heard, and do know the laws, and are members in a covenant and under the law of God, they will be judged by that same law, for having known the divine law of God, their disobedience and squandering of the gifts they were given will render even greater and harsher judgement than if they had not known. These who knew the law will be judged by the law.)

13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

(Aha! We must be doers of the law, not just hearers, if we wish to be just in the sight of God. It requires good works in accordance to commands of God. Perhaps they do not know the God of Abraham, but they still have a conscience which is the same God Who speaks to them in their hearts and minds.)

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

You see, CL, these children of God, who may not understand the fullness of God's revelation to mankind in the Person of Jesus Christ, but by doing the good works and living a good life pleasing to God, demonstrating the work of the law written in their hearts (such as mercy, charity, and love), they will be excused for not following the written law.

Before the Judgment Seat of Christ, our own thoughts and conscience will accuse us. Before the Light and Truth of God, whereby all things will be exposed, our own conscience (even though hidden and ignored for years by own habit) will be what accuses us before God and all of creation. This will be the gnashing of teeth and undying worm. Our own awareness of our utter failures and sins before the Light of Truth will be our hell.

And so, as St. Paul says above, those who were blamelessly ignorant of the law but whose works had the law written in their hearts (not by specific instruction, but by their own lawful works and good-willed nature), their conscience "will excuse them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ."

A just and loving God would do nothing less.

[Natural Citizen]

No thanks. No one listens to the gospel. People tune in to TV preachers to hear something other than the gospel.

Well, what's the purpose in evangelizing anyway if nobody is, as you pompously proclaim, capable of believing or receiving God in the first place? Or do you think everybody wants to sit around listening to you tell them they're going to hell and there's nothing they can do about it regardless if they can't understand and believe what you're telling them anyway?

Or is it as you said previously in that God made you, S_F, His elected angel of Grace. And that nobody can know or believe in God unless he sends you, S_F, to tell them that God chose them?

[Natural Citizen]

People tune in to TV preachers to hear something other than the gospel.

Hm. So, then, people do have free will. Well..when it's convenient for your terms of controversy, I mean. Heh.

You have me giggling over here, S_F.

[TER]

The problem is that your presupposition is nonsensical. What person can keep the beatitudes? To be clear, here I do not mean the ethical obligation of the believer, which he is continually sanctified toward, but rather the idea that someone could actually keep the beatitudes to a sufficient degree to atone for himself. I'm guessing this isn't actually what you mean, but at face value that's what you're saying, that people can either be saved through faith in Christ, or by doing what he commanded yet without faith. But really that renders the cross worthless. If you are even asking the question of how a loving God could send X person to Hell, I fear for your soul, because you don't even understand the justice of God, the holy wrath which all people are under save Christ's righteousness imputed to their behalf.

God is love. There is no malice in love.

God is light. There is no darkness in light.

God is good. There is no evil in good.

When Christ returns in glory, God will fill the entire creation, and "be all in all" as St. Paul says.

God's love will be pervasive and ubiquitous, and nothing will hide from His presence and light.

To those who sought after Him, and gleamed Him even in their earthy life, and loved Him, God will be a radiant light of consolation and peace and joy.

To those who instead chose darkness in their life, and ignored Him and hated Him, God will be a 'consuming fire', tormenting and scorching.

It is the same Light of God, which is all good, and filling all things. For 'He is not a respected of persons', and gives all His love to all in the new creation.

The difference will be how we will relate to this love, according to how we prepared for it in this life and according to our conscience before God's radiant presence and glory.

Hell will be our own torment before the goodness and glory of God.

Hell will be us naked and grieved when our acts, thoughts, and secrets are exposed before God and all creation, in the light of the divine love of God.

[TER]

Your issues with Augustine seems less to do with what he said and more so with how he said it. On the one hand, you have affirmed Augustine's position that men suffer mortality on account of an ancestral link to Adam and consequently his Fall, yet you don't seem to care for the notion that there is an accountability attached to the metaphysical character of sin, despite that it is the culprit in the actual sins of each individual. This seems to me to be more of a quibble about denoting the character of cause and effect and less a real disagreement about man's fallen state and the necessity of Christ in correcting this eventuality.




Augustine and the Scots did not teach that man lost the "Image" of God (this would carry implications for murder not being an offense to God since there would be no image of Him to strike at), but rather that the "Likeness" of God, ergo the moral efficacy, has been lost. There is language throughout the OT about the evil imaginations of men, perhaps best displayed in Genesis 8:21. If Christ's blood is not necessary in restoring Man's heart to a state of goodness, it stands to reason that Christ would not have used exclusive language as he did in John 14:6. Furthermore, as Paul himself stated, we are not merely sick and dying in trespasses and sins, but dead in them as noted in Ephesians 2:1-5 and Colossians 2:13.

HU, I am going to address this hopefully tomorrow when I have more time. Good night!

[Sola_Fide]

God is love. There is no malice in love.

God is light. There is no darkness in light.

God is good. There is no evil in good.

When Christ returns in glory, God will fill the entire creation, and "be all in all" as St. Paul says.

God's love will be pervasive and ubiquitous, and nothing will hide from His presence and light.

To those who sought after Him, and gleamed Him even in their earthy life, and loved Him, God will be a radiant light of consolation and peace and joy.

To those who instead chose darkness in their life, and ignored Him and hated Him, God will be a 'consuming fire', tormenting and scorching.

It is the same Light of God, which is all good, and filling all things. For 'He is not a respected of persons', and gives all His love to all in the new creation.

The difference will be how we will relate to this love, according to how we prepared for it in this life and according to our conscience before God's radiant presence and glory.

Hell will be our own torment before the goodness and glory of God.

Hell will be us naked and grieved when our acts, thoughts, and secrets are exposed before God and all creation, in the light of the divine love of God.

Answer FFs question TER. Who can keep the Beatitudes?

Actually Jesus already answers your question in the very chapter.

Why don't you believe Jesus? I'm asking seriously. You can read the verses in the chapter where He condemns the world for not living up to what He is preaching there. Why don't you believe Him. Don't post bumper sticker responses. Please interact with the text itself.

[Christian Liberty]

None of that is the gospel. There's nothing deeper than who God is and what He did in salvation.

I understand that those things are not the gospel. I am NOT one of those theonomists who tries to make every good thing the gospel itself. Nevertheless Hebrews does talk about refusing to move on from the elementary. There are issues that are NOT essential to being saved (and thus, do not entirely break unity and fellowship among brethren) that are nevertheless very important and do create barriers to fellowship and unity.

[pcosmar]

No thanks. No one listens to the gospel. People tune in to TV preachers to hear something other than the gospel.

Gospel?

That would be Good News,,
but I have never heard any Good News from you.

only bad news and accusations.

[lilymc]

Gospel?

That would be Good News,,
but I have never heard any Good News from you.

only bad news and accusations.

Perfect reply. His "Gospel" is the opposite of good news...which is what the word Gospel means.

The Westboro Baptist Church I'm sure would agree with Sola, and they probably call it the "Gospel" too.

[Natural Citizen]

Gospel?

That would be Good News,,
but I have never heard any Good News from you.

only bad news and accusations.

Perfect reply. His "Gospel" is the opposite of good news...which is what the word Gospel means.

The Westboro Baptist Church I'm sure would agree with Sola, and they probably call it the "Gospel" too.

What do you two think about this once over. It's an old sermon. Not like the pre-constitution liberty sermons I posted around here some place. This is 20th century stuff.

I'll snip n post and put the rest in a link.

What Is The Gospel? By Dr. Harry Ironside (1876-1951) - http://jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_Ha...the_gospel.htm

“The Gospel is not a call to repentance, or to amendment of our ways, to make restitution for past sins, or to promise to do better in the future. These things are proper in their place, but they do not constitute the Gospel; for the Gospel is not good advice to be obeyed, it is good news to be believed. Do not make the mistake then of thinking that the Gospel is a call to duty or a call to reformation, a call to better your condition, to behave yourself in a more perfect way than you have been doing in the past…

Nor is the Gospel a demand that you give up the world, that you give up your sins, that you break off bad habits, and try to cultivate good ones. You may do all these things, and yet never believe the Gospel and consequently never be saved at all.”

[Christian Liberty]

God is love. There is no malice in love.

God is light. There is no darkness in light.

God is good. There is no evil in good.

When Christ returns in glory, God will fill the entire creation, and "be all in all" as St. Paul says.

God's love will be pervasive and ubiquitous, and nothing will hide from His presence and light.

To those who sought after Him, and gleamed Him even in their earthy life, and loved Him, God will be a radiant light of consolation and peace and joy.

To those who instead chose darkness in their life, and ignored Him and hated Him, God will be a 'consuming fire', tormenting and scorching.

It is the same Light of God, which is all good, and filling all things. For 'He is not a respected of persons', and gives all His love to all in the new creation.

The difference will be how we will relate to this love, according to how we prepared for it in this life and according to our conscience before God's radiant presence and glory.

Hell will be our own torment before the goodness and glory of God.

Hell will be us naked and grieved when our acts, thoughts, and secrets are exposed before God and all creation, in the light of the divine love of God.

Honestly TER I'll be honest, I find the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Hell petty philosophically fascinating. its not Biblical though. The Biblical view of Hell is that its outer darkness, separated from all of God but his wrath. So I don't see anything about your view as Biblical. That said, I wouldn't say your view of Hell is a concern in terms of your soul, though I do think its an error. What I'm more concerned about is that you actually seem to think non-Christians can earn their way into heaven such that God would actually be malicious if he did not let them in. This is the elephant in the room that I'm honestly surprised and confused as to why Hells_Unicorn is not harder on. It seems like Steelites are the only branch of Presbyterianism that sees Eastern Orthodox as having much merit and the rest see EOs as not really any more Christian than Rome. I do want to hear HUs perspective on this but the more I read of you, the more I agree with those other Presbyterians. Not because you are not a nice or gracious person, to be clear, but what you teach is at odds with the scriptures even at the core level of the gospel.

[Natural Citizen]

Honestly TER I'll be honest

Wait. So you lie sometimes?

I find...I don't see...I wouldn't say...though I do think...I'm more concerned...I'm honestly surprised and confused.... It seems like...I do want...

Stop doing that.

[Christian Liberty]

Shame on me for posting while tired

[Natural Citizen]

Shame on me for posting while tired

I was just messing with you, man.

[TER]

Honestly TER I'll be honest, I find the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Hell petty philosophically fascinating. its not Biblical though.

It indeed can be deduced by the teachings in the Bible. I listed some of the proofs in my post, referencing verses and teachings from the NT. Some of the greatest saints of the Orthodox Church express this understanding, most notably St. Isaac the Syrian, but it comes earlier than him.

As there has been no particular proclaimation in a Ecumencial Council, there can coexist varying opinions on the eschaton and the Judgment and recreation within the Church, within the boundaries of the Scriptures and the theology and Christology of the faith.

What will come is still a great mystery, and the Church bows before the Almighty acknowledging the limits of man before God and His Wisdom.

Nevertheless, what I wrote above is an ancient understanding of Heaven and Hell, biblically based, where Heaven and Hell are not so much mere different places, but also, different conditions before the the presence of God. Many wise and holy men, spanning many centuries, have handed down this teaching, and while it remains 'officially' in the Church as theological opinion worthy of consideration, it's biblical interpretation is well grounded and it's tradition is ancient. It is the teaching of monasteries and Bishops and held to be patristic and apostolic.

"What I'm more concerned about is that you actually seem to think non-Christians can earn their way into heaven such that God would actually be malicious if he did not let them in.

St. Paul wrote that in the day of the final judgement, when they come before Christ as Judge and give an account, those who did good God-pleasing works and had the law written in their hearts and were blameless with regards to not having known the law, they would die and not be held to the law, and that their conscience would excuse them.

Notice, these are people who did not know the law. They are blameless for not knowing the Torah. A just God would not condemn them for something that they are blameless for. It is impossible to call God just and loving and merciful and claim He does such a thing, which even human reason and human law considers unjust and unrighteous.

God is good, and their is no evil in Him. God is just, and their is no injustice in Him.

Therefore, a man of good virtue and good will who lived a thousand years before Christ will be judged according to a different law than what Israel and the Church has proclaimed. It would be a law 'unto themselves' and according to their hearts and Christ's knowledge and judgment of their hearts.

When Christ descended into Hades (a very biblical teaching which is apostolic and orthodox), He revealed the good news to all there (that is, all who ever died in the history of creation before the moment He entered into Hades). He proclaimed Himself the Son of God and Savior of man, and all saw Him face to face and heard His proclamation.

What happened next is a matter of debate, and there are two different understandings. Some say that all the souls escaped from there and Hades has been left only with the devils and his demons. Others believe that only those who received Christ's gospel faithfully escaped, while there were others who denied Him and remained. There is no dogmatic position.

Nevertheless, we see that God gave to those who died before Him, whom had no knowledge of Jesus Christ, an opportunity and chance to believe in His gospel and to be freed and be with Him.

This is what a just and loving God would do to those who blamelessly had not known Him.

Now, don't get me wrong! The name Jesus Christ is known throughout the world now. Plenty of people will be thrown in the Lake of Fire on the Day of Judgment because they knew of Him and His teachings but denied Him. Or not having known Him, chose evil in their lives and could not accept Him as He is. Most sadly, many will be those who were baptized in Christ and believed Jesus to be the Son of God and yet did the works of evil and chose darkness over light, deception over truth, and the carnal over the spiritual. So that when they come 'face to face', and 'see Him as He is', it is grief-ridden guilt and self-accusing condemnation springing from habitual disobedience and untruthfulness which will accuse them and judge them and torment them.

A person cannot earn their way into the Kingdom on their own merits, for it always requires God to fill and bring to fulfillment. Not only for salvation, but for all good things. It, too, is up to God to weigh and judge according to His divine law and good will the hearts of men. To those who loved Him and served Him and waited upon Him, blessedness and bliss. To those who ignored Him, denied Him or fought against Him, it will be torment and suffering.

But notice, these are experiences of man with respect to God. It is God's Truth, Light and Love which will be blessedness and bliss to one, and the same Truth, Light and Love will be experienced as condemnation, blinding darkness, and godly malice to another. The first, leading him to an eternal movement of growing communion and peace towards God. The other, a constant and inexhaustible movement of separation from Him.

What we describe as attributes of God are often anthropological labels according to relative experiences. We should be careful to ascribe human emotional states to God, such as wrath, for these attributes may merely reflect how His energy and presence is understood relative to the man who is experiencing it. Thus it may seem like God has wrath on those in the eschaton who are consumed in the Lake of Fire, but really, it is God's presence itself which the condemned internalizes as wrath. Because to them, His very presence brings them to mind (in their conscience) of their own unrepentant sins of wrath and malice which they held and which compromised their ontological and spiritual condition. They receive the radiant love of God with malice and with wrath, and thus, it is malice and wrath which they hold between them and God, which is a source of torment and separation.

[TER]

Btw, some of what I wrote are not 'official teachings' of the Orthodox Church. Again, there are things which are dogmatic and not debatable, while others, especially when it comes to the eschaton, which allow for personal opinion. In this topic, there can be respected different viewpoints.

A heretic is someone who persists on teaching something after being corrected by the Church, not someone who holds onto an opinion with regards to certain mysteries to come. Thus, the teaching of universal salvation (or apokatastasis) has been condemned and those who teach it within the Church are considered heretics since the Church in Council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has spoken. But that being said, St. Gregory of Nyssa (one of the greatest saints, from the 4th century) who came before that decision and espoused this belief, is not condemned or considered a heretic. For saints can err, and it is forgivable, for they too are human. And it is expected that had the Church spoken in his days or before, the Saint would have submitted to the voice and the mind of the universal Church and corrected himself (as it is believed the Saint does today, awaiting the Judgment). It is when a person persists in their condemned teaching and do not repent, whereby they are caste up to God (lifted to God, what the word 'anathema' means in the original Greek) for Him to judge according to His Wisdom and Just Judgements.

[TER]

Same thing with regards to St. Augustine. He is a Saint of the Church, but he taught things which contradicted the earlier fathers of the Church. Because of time and space and distance and language and cultural barriers, his new teachings were isolated from the greater witness of the catholic Church and not corrected (which, I believe, he would have submitted to happily in obedience, having understood the importance in holding on to the traditions and teachings of the fathers), but rather, his opinions found ground in the western Church and proliferated and became the main theological framework with regards to soteriology and pneumatology.

This led, ultimately, into a divergence in understanding which we find starkly between the traditions and teachings of the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. It begins with St. Augustine's teachings and blossomed with St. Ambrose and Thomas Aquinas, wherein a juridical emphasis was placed in the forefront and mixed with human rationalism, leading to human logic and reason circumscribing God's will and economia in the world. This has led to vastly different understandings of the the energy-essence distinction between these two great traditions. Also, it led to differences with regards to changes in doctrines and additions to the creed and the authority of the Pope. This led ultimately to the Great Schism, where we have on the one side, the 4 Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, comprising the majority of the Christian world and the ancient of Christian cities, and on the other hand, the Patriarchate of Rome, insular and overreaching. The first ones holding on to the original Creed, sticking religiously to the canons and delivered faith, and holding onto the early witness and patristic consensus. And Rome, alone, adopting uncanonical additions to the Creed, inventing new doctrines and dogmas apart from the catholic Church, and infusing the Church and the State into one whereby the Bishop becomes the King, and considers himself infallible and the Vicar of Christ on earth.

St. Augustine is a great Saint, but some of his teachings on original sin and certain teachings on predestination and the nature of God are theological opinions which he developed which have never been considered authoritative within the eastern Church (and what is now called the Orthodox Church), for it lacked consensus and apostolic witness. Instead, it became the foundation for much of the theology of the western Church where it was expounded and developed. This has led to certain irreconcilable differences in theology and faith between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church (and the Protestant Churches which were born from it).