You may pass off the quotes u_stole_my_name posted if you like, but before you get flippant please consider that you are opposing St. Clement of Alexandria in this:
" Do not [the Scriptures] show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept ‘in ward and guard’?… And, as I think, the Saviour also exerts His might because it is His work to save; which accordingly He also did by drawing to salvation those who became willing, by the preaching [of the Gospel], to believe on Him, wherever they were. If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend, it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there… ...A righteous man, then, differs not, as righteous, from another righteous man, whether he be of the Law [Jew] or a Greek. For God is not only Lord of the Jews, but of all men... So I think it is demonstrated that God, being good, and the Lord powerful, save with a righteousness and equality which extend to all that turn to Him, whether here or elsewhere. "
As well as St. Cyril: " …He showed the way to salvation not only to us, but also to the spirits in hell; having descended, He preached to those once disobedient, as Peter says. For it did not befit for love of man to be partial, but the manifestation of [this] gift should have been extended to all nature… Having preached to the spirits in hell and having said ‘go forth’ to the prisoners, and ‘show yourselves’ to those in prison on the third day, He resurrected His temple and again opens up to our nature the ascent to heaven, bringing Himself to the Father as the beginning of humanity, pledging to those on earth the grace of communion of the Spirit. Death unwilling to be defeated is defeated; corruption is transformed; unconquerable passion is destroyed. While hell, diseased with excessive insatiability and never satisfied with the dead, is taught, even if against its will, that which it could not learn previously. For it not only ceases to claim those who are still to fall [in the future], but also lets free those already captured, being subjected to splendid devastation by the power of our Saviour... Having preached to the spirits in hell, once disobedient, He came out as conqueror by resurrecting His temple like a beginning of our hope and by showing to [our] nature the manner of the raising from the dead, and giving us along with it other blessings as well. " http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx
Don’t let anyone here tell you how you should use and consider patristic quotations. Let us settle this issue once and for all, you have a very simple choice to make a) you can listen to and submit to the God-given authority of the Church, and the manner in wich she regards her own tradition, or b) you can listen to the personal belief of others and their own usage of patristics.
Here is what His Holiness Pope Shenouda III has to say on the issue:
From page 68 of his book Doctrinal Theology:
The Lord Christ went down to hades where the Old Testament saints were confined, to release them. He also went down to hades to preach and to celebrate His victory over the powers of darkness.
This is more or less EXACTLY what I have said: a) The souls of all the righteous/saints were released and b) The ministry/preaching aspect of Christ’s descent was also to proclaim victory over the powers of darkness as well as their impending judgement, specifically those fallen angels of Genesis 6 who chose to rebel against God.
I have shown how so far that a) is supported by St Clement of Alexandria and Iranaeus, and it will soon be shown that Hippolytus also adhered to this interpretation. I have also shown how b) is exegetically sound; it is the most plausible interpretation accounting for both extra-biblical context (1 Enoch) and the scriptural context.
Furthermore, Coptic theologian Ferial Moawad states in his Commentary on the first epistle of Peter, in relation to the verses in question:
When the Lord died in the flesh, His soul was separated from His flesh, but His divinity was not separated from His flesh nor from His soul. The soul departed to Hades to preach those who died on the hope of the resurrection, for Satan has no power over them.
He then goes on to address the patristic explanations of this verse:
A. The opinion of St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Jerome: After the Lord’s death in the flesh, He descended to Hades and preached to those who did not believe Noah when he was warning them about the flood, but when some saw the rain pouring, they repented and asked for mercy.
B. The opinion of St. Augustine: The Lord Jesus, with His Holy Spirit, preached the people, through Noah, and warned them of the flood, so they may repent, but they did not believe. Saying, “in the prison”, he means the spirits who were in the flesh. Only eight, Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives were saved through this preaching.
This is indeed an interesting, yet plausible explanation.
D. The opinion of Fr. Hippolytus62: [He arranged everything on earth; therefore, He became man to restore to us our image through Himself, also He arranged everything under the earth for He was numbered with the dead preaching the Gospel to the souls of the saints who died on the hope of the resurrection. Through death, He conquered death.]
Hippolytus's explanation ratifies the interpretation of St Clement of Alexandria and Iraneus; that only the righteous were offered salvation.
E. The opinion of St. Irenaeus63: All those who believed in Him, hoped in Him and declared His coming and submitted to His blessings, that is, all the prophets, the fathers, He forgave them their sins, in as much as He forgave us.
F. The opinion of St. Clement of Alexandria64: He relied on what Job said in ch.28:24, that He looks to the ends of the earth and sees under the whole heavens. He descended and preached not only to those who hoped in His salvation, but to the Gentiles, who in their ignorance, lived as righteous according to their law.
Furthermore In The Spirituality of The Praise According To The Rite Of The Coptic Orthodox Church, H.G. Bishop Anba Mettaous states on page 95:
Hades where Jesus descended to through the Cross, releasing the upright and righteous and all those who reposed on the hope. He left all the wicked ones behind, exactly as Pharaoh and his soldiers had drowned.
His Grace then goes on to state:
As the fire didn’t burn the Three Young Saints, also the fire of Hades did not burn the righteous ones, but the fire rather burnt the devil’s followers, and it is written in the Holy Bible “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose,walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” (Dan.3: 25)
In interpreting this further he emphasizes the connection between the three young saints and the righteous:
There is a great resemblance between the souls of the righteous in Hades and the Three young Saints in the furnace, because the souls of the righteous were not burnt in the blazing Hades, exactly as the Three Young Saints who were not burnt amidst the furnace, but they were as if walking in a garden.
In his Contemplations on the Resurrection, His Holiness Pope Shenouda reiterates the same principle mentioned above in point a) when he states on page 113:
He opened the gate of paradise and carried to Him the righteous who were waiting in Hades. With them, He also let in the right robber to paradise.
And again on page 78 of Many Years with the Peoples Questions Volume II, he states that the purpose of Christ’s descent into hades was to:
“…release the righteous people of the old times who departed in hope letting all of them into Paradise with the thief who was on the Lord's right hand on the cross and whom the Lord promised, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43).”
Again, it is the interpretation of St Clement, Iranaeus, and Hippolytus that our Church exemplifies on this issue.
In The Work of the Cross by Coptic theologian Maged Attia, he states on page 12:
In the majestic procession Christ the Lord descended to Hades immediately after His life giving death on the Cross (with His humanity and divinity inseparable) and opened the gates of Hades to free Adam and his righteous children from the bondage of Satan.
Again, it is the interpretation of St Clement, Iranaeus and Hippolytus that our Church exemplifies on this issue.
In the Fraction To The Son For the Resurrection of the Coptic Liturgy it states:
You descended to Hades, and suspended the dominion of death, You freed the captives and granted mankind a status of honour. You uplifted Your saints up to Your glory, presented them as offering to Your Gracious Father.
Via poetic parallel, the freed captives are equated with the uplifted Saints. Again, only the righteous from were redeemed from hades.
Fr Tadros Malaty also raitifies the patristic understanding that only the righteous were vindicated from hades when he states in his book Christ in the Eucharist on page 102:
Praying the Nones, according to the Apostolic Tradition, we look like the souls of the righteous whom the Lord remembered – for after He was pierced in His side blood and water, were shed forth, He descended to them in the Hades and gave them rest1.
Fr. Tadros Malaty states also in his commentary of 1 Samuel states in relation to the events of chapter 17:
The lion and bear, both refer to the devil, who dared to attack some of David’s sheep; to get strangled by him. What we are reading, dear brethren, is allegoric: What is symbolized by David, has been realized in our Lord Jesus Christ, who has strangled the lion and the bear, when he descended into Hades to liberate all the saints from their claws.
b) you can listen to the personal belief of others and their own usage of patristics.
Those patristic quotations are not my "personal belief", they are the personal beliefs of Sts. Clement and Cyril. And if you read the page where these quotations were taken from, which I have given the link to three times, you would see that these are not in the least a "personal opinion". It is the "opinion" of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev. If we wish to argue with him be my guest. I must warn you, however, that you are sure to lose. He is the most knowledgable Orthodox theologian alive today. Please read http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx for his article on this issue and consider it carefully before you make more conclusions on this issue.
Those patristic quotations are not my "personal belief", they are the personal beliefs of Sts. Clement and Cyril.
I did not refer to you personally....
In any event the fact of the matter is that patristic understanding on this issue is not unanimous, therefore there are those who according to their personal belief will vindicate one interpretation over another.
I don't have a problem with either of the quotations you have presented in your last post. Neither of them prove that the souls of all (including the unrighteous) in pre-Incarnation times, were saved.
As shown elsewhere, St Clement makes it clear that only the righteous (both Jew - righteous according to the Torah, and Gentile - righteous according to natural law) were offered salvation.
If we wish to argue with him be my guest.
My point has been made; our Coptic Bishops have spoken, our Coptic Patriarch has spoken, our Coptic theolgians and priests have spoken; I have quoted all of them above; it is obvious that the Coptic Church, in both adhering to tradition and being consistent with the Biblical text, has ratified the interpretation of St Clement, Iraeneous, and Hippolytus i.e. that the righteous Old Testament saints; those who hoped in the resurrection, are the ones who were redeemed. Case closed as far as Im concerned.
Yet you have given Scriptures that could well indicate the opposite. Surely all may indicate … simply what the word itself means: "all".
Surely It may; however, the only point that I made in relation to this issue is that “all” does not *necessarily* mean “all” to an extreme extent, as many would interpret prima facie. As I have emphasized, it is the context which determines how we interpret it. Since the Bible cannot contradict itself on a moral or doctrinal level, I therefore await your exegesis on the few of many passages listed so far which indicate that not “all” in the extreme sense, will be saved, or in other words, to make my point clearer, those of us who die as unrepentent sinners - the result of a consistent resistance of His Grace - cannot ever hope to see the light of His Kingdom.
As I said, I am open to correction; especially from you specifically, since I highly regard and respect you, and consider you a teacher and friend - one who has helped me considerably with regards to many issues both doctrinal and spiritual, in the past.
The condemnations of St. Demetrius are nototiously hard to find out, but they seem to have focussed on Origen claiming that the devil must be saved, his illegitemate ordination to the priesthood, and his being unqualified for the priesthood due to self-castration. None of this carries any "dogmatic weight" in the discussion on Universal Salvation.
I will look further into this issue, since as far as I know, he directly condemned the doctrine of universal salvation itself.
Once again, I'de like to emphasize that the salvation of the unrighteous from Hades by Christ at His descending into hell, is not identical to Universal Salvation.
I never equated the two; I simply declared that they are indeed interrelated for both rely upon the principle that the unrepentant sinner who dies in sin, may still possibly gain salvation.
Iow let us be careful not to sit on the Throne in Heaven that is too big for us, and will inflate out ego's to the point of damaging our souls.
I respect your wish, however I cannot empathize with your perspective on this for as far as I’m concerned I believe the scriptures have made it clear, and certainly many authorities have spoken decisively on the subject, including the latest work I read by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy. This is not about usurping Christ’s prerogative of Righteous Judge of the dead, nor does it have anything to do with egotism, it is simply a matter of (as far as I, and many of our hierarchs and fathers are concerned) witnessing to and reiterating the divine testimony itself.
Let us discuss the descent into hades, but avoid such topics as Universal Salvation.
I have said all I have to say on the descent into Hades issue I believe: a) The scriptures (1 Peter 3:18-20 specifically) do not even hint at the argument that the souls of all the unrighteousness were saved b) Those who were ministered to in hades were a specific people of a specific time period namely the pre-flood age; as indicated not only the Biblical text but by many of the fathers c) Proper exegesis leads us to conclude that Christ’s ministry was not redemptive, though this does not necessarily negate the fact that redemption was an additional aspect to the primary aspect implied in the Scriptures d) Patristic tradition is neither universal nor unanimous e) I have proven above in my second last post, that respected figures who represent the Coptic Church; our Patriarch (H.H. Shenouda III), Bishops (e.g. Anba Mettaous), theologians (e.g. Moawad), and reverend fathers (e.g. Fr Tadros Malaty), all ratify the interpretations of St Clement, Iranaeus, and Hipppolytus i.e. that only the righteous Old Testament Saints, who died in hope of the resurrection, were the ones that were redeemed.
[quote author=Iqbal link=board=1;threadid=1978;start=60#msg30193 date=1120322594] As shown elsewhere, St Clement makes it clear that only the righteous (both Jew - righteous according to the Torah, and Gentile - righteous according to natural law) were offered salvation.
it is obvious that the Coptic Church, in both adhering to tradition and being consistent with the Biblical text, has ratified the interpretation of St Clement, Iraeneous, and Hippolytus i.e. that the righteous Old Testament saints; those who hoped in the resurrection, are the ones who were redeemed.
First St. Clement says that both righteous Jews and Gentiles were saved. Then St. Clement says that only righteous OT saints who hoped in the resurrection were saved. Excuse me if I have problems interpretating St. Clement as a confused psychophrenic. I believe St. Clement to say quite clearly that all Gentiles who believed in Christ's preaching when He was in hades was saved. And for St. Clement this was not dependent on whether or not they were aware of a coming of a Messiah. Say what you wish on this subject, but let us not misrepesent St. Clement's teaching.
And St. Cyril never says in that only the OT saints were the ones saved from Hades by Christ.
You cite Irenaeus and Hippolytus in your defense. Read http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx paragraph 2 and you will see why I find this so telling and worrisome.
First St. Clement says that both righteous Jews and Gentiles were saved. Then St. Clement says that only righteous OT saints who hoped in the resurrection were saved. Excuse me if I have problems interpretating St. Clement as a confused psychophrenic.
I apologise for being clumsy with my wording such that I gave you opportunity to misrepresent my actual and intended position. Allow me to carefully rephrase my conclusion all in one go, concerning the category of people that St Clement clearly understands to have been offered salvation (i.e. given the opportunity to declare faith in the Risen Lord, and to consequently be saved):
a) The righteous (according to the Torah) Old Testament saints who died in hope of the resurrection, and; b) The righteous gentiles (according to their own philosophies and natural law).
Therefore, no unrighteous were saved; and this is the point of this discussion.
You cite Irenaeus and Hippolytus in your defense. Read http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx paragraph 2 and you will see why I find this so telling and worrisome.
I see nothing worrisome; tell me what I am missing.
Read the many Biblical verses which declare as a consistent whole, that unrepentent sinners who die in their sins will not inherit the kingdrom, as well as the above listed authorities of the Coptic Church who ratify the fact that only the righteous were saved from hades, and then you will see why I find your position worrisome.
Perhaps you would like to say where you see Hippolytus and Irenaeus saying that only the OT righteous who believed in the Messiah were saved.
From Irenaeus I find: The Lord God remembered His dead from the people of Israel, who had fallen asleep in the soil of the Earth, and descended to them and preached to them His salvation that they might be saved.” (Dialouge with Trypho 72)
and: “This was sign of raising up the souls through the wood of the tree, on which He died, He Who was able to raise up the souls who would follow His ascent. For this wood (of the cross), too, had the characteristic of raising many souls which made their appearance in bodies, when the Holy Soul of Christ made Its descent (into Hell).” (Commentary on IV Kings 6:6)
And for Hippolytus: " He is the One Who pulled up from the lowest Hell the first man who was from the Earth and had been lost, having been held captive by the bonds of death. He is the One Who descended from above and brought above him who was down below. He is the One Who preached the Gospel to the dead and redeemed the souls, Who became the resurrection of those that had been buried… He was the Helper of the man who had been conquered; the One Who assimilated Himself with him… the Noble One Who wants to restore to the slave to freedom through His Own obedience " (Commenting on Deuteronomy 33.26, quoted in Theodoret’s Eranistes)
and: “This is why ‘The Portals of Hell quaked when they saw you (Job 38.7),’ and the gates of brass were broken to pieces, and the iron bars were shattered. For behold, the Only-Begotten entered in as a Soul among souls; God the Word clothed with a soul; for the Body was laid in a grave, not emptied of the Godhead, but being present in Hell, He was in His essence with the Father, and thus, He was both in the body and in Hell; for the Son is uncontained, like the Father, and contains all things; but He willed to be contained in a soul-endowed body, so that he might go into Hell with His own soul, and not with His bare Godhead.” (Preserved by Nicetas the Deacon in his Catena of Patristic exegesis on the Gospel according to Luke)
I quoted and referenced the work of Iraneus on page 3 of this thread:
"For this reason it was, that the Lord made His descent into the lower regions beneath the earth, proclaiming and preaching His advent there, and pronouncing the remission of sins that was received by those who believe in Him. Now it was that all those believed in Him and who had hope towards Him; those who proclaimed and prophesied of His advent, and who submitted to His dispensations; those righteous men, the patriarchs and the prophets…" Against Heresies Bk. 4 ch.27
With regards to Hippolytus he states:
"He arranged everything on earth; therefore, He became man to restore to us our image through Himself, also He arranged everything under the earth for He was numbered with the dead preaching the Gospel to the souls of the saints who died on the hope of the resurrection. Through death, He conquered death."
I cannot reference this to a primary source yet; I reference it to Ferial Moawad's translation of Fr. Tadros Malaty's Commentary on the First Epistle of St Peter.
I will read section 2 of that article next time I have the chance, I have been online for too long today.
All you have shown are passages referring to the release of the saints from Hades. You have yet to show passages referring to the exclusive release of the saints from Hades.....two totally different things.
By that same logic, you could say that when Christ left the 99 to find the one sheep, that he meant He would exclusively rescue that one sheep....leaving all the rest to be plundered by savage wolves.
And even granting that saints and only saints were released from Hades, then how do we define "saints"? Can those in Hades who repented of their previous un-righteousness at the descent of Christ not be considered "saints", insofar as anyone who repents is a saint?
And this whole linguistic business of "all", "every", "eternal", "never", etc. etc. and whether or not they can be rendered literally: Let's grant, for argument's sake that you and I have reached a stalemate on this issue. Then should not the outcome be decided on Patristic and/or rational basis? I say, "Yes." And both Patristics and Reason are on the side of the TOTAL emptying of hades upon Christ's descent.
And no....my being a "liberal" is meant strictly in reference to my political views. I would actually call the position you (take "your" in the singular or plural....however you like) take the "liberal" one, insofar as hardly any Father endorsed it in the first four centuries.
May I ask you politely what is your denomination? If you do not want to answer, it is O.K., I respect your option.
I'm Eastern Orthodox (Antiochian). For the past few months I've been leaning towards the idea of converting to Coptic (OO) for Christological, ecclesiological, and personal reasons. I have been hanging out (I try not to "troll", but sometimes it just works out that way) on Coptic web-sites and going to Coptic Liturgies for the past few months to get some "feel" for it. But with this latest issue (i.e. the one we are presently discussing), I'm not so sure anymore. The EO Church is more "open-ended" with this issue (unless, of course, one wants to pretend that an Emperor's decisions are binding on the Body of Christ, which is knee-slappably laughable), so I'll probably stick to EO for now.
But I hope this recent heat doesn't prevent you all from being friends with me.... :-[ :-\
no my friend no one is angry, just zealous bout our belief, u are our brother, and xaira our sister (i hope thats a gals name) we are not attacking, rather defending. but i can assure u, wat we say wen we argue is out of love not anger. if we didnt love, we woodnt care.
God guide us all, and enlighten our minds, hearts and understanding.
Mr. Iqbal...please correct me if I'm wrong, but our coptic orthodox church is one of LIFE...NOT a philosophical brain game...what I mean is, we don't just pitch verses against each other as if they were bombs...or patrological quotes (OF MY OWN REASONING) too...like H.H Bishop Rofaeil once said...u can't give a baby a book to tell him/her how to walk...but you must urself teach the child how to walk...u can't verbally explain it...u have to go through it urself....
That's my point...USMN...please try to understand this...people here are zeaolous about refuting simply because, as Iqbal once said...we FOLLOW tradition and belief...we don't CREATE...(and NONE of the Popes did by the way...Mr. Iqbal might be better than me in this...but I don't need any proofs, because God that said that The Gates of Hell will not overcome the Church will protect me from such heresies)...besides, not even the church says 2+2=5...if there's an inconsistency in anything...then u have the right to question it...NOT BECUASE YOU PUT UR OPINION on what is right, but trying to HUMBLY understand the church's view...some things we truly find bigger than us...fine...we submit to the Church...She knows better...meaning general history and way of life, which I again emphasize...meaning the church teaches so-and-so, and I say the CHURCH and not a person, then that's right...and we don't try to refute it from itself...because most likely WE don't understand something...
All you have shown are passages referring to the release of the saints from Hades. You have yet to show passages referring to the exclusive release of the saints from Hades.....
Nice try, but the very implication that is clearly obvious is that the released = the righteous, and not, the righteous = released. The point St Clement makes specifically is that it is not fair for those gentiles who lived a righteous life to perish due to their ignorance of the true faith - righteousness is clearly the basis of his understanding of those who were the object of Christ's redemptive ministry. You can twist these quotations as much as you want for your own personal agenda; you are not even a Copt so it doesn’t really bother me with regards to what you personally believe, but those quotations are quite clear and the Coptic Church understands them clearly as shown in an above post, and it is the Church who is the ultimate authority with regards to which theological viewpoints are authoritative and which are not, and it is also the authority regarding upon which terms it chooses to understand and incorporate those viewpoints. The last time I checked it was the Church that was given the authority, and not theologians or commentators of the Church.
Furthermore, as I clearly have proven so, far Christ’s ministry was with regards to a specific people of a specific age i.e. Noah’s generation. This is not only made clear by the Biblical text, but it is also according to Fr. Tadros Malaty, the viewpoint of St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Jerome. The fact that not “all” were saved in a literal sense, is made clear by St Peter the Apostle himself, in his second epistle (see 2 Pet. 2:4, 5, 9) where he uses those very fallen and disobedient nephilim of Noah’s day as an example of those being reserved for eternal damnation. Twisting or employing patristic quotations in a manner that forces St Peter to directly contradict himself in-between epistles, is hardly going to give you a reasonable conclusion.
Can those in Hades who repented of their previous un-righteousness at the descent of Christ not be considered "saints", insofar as anyone who repents is a saint?
No, you are inventing your own interpretation, and presuming what you have yet to prove i.e. that one does in fact have the chance to repent after their death, and that this repentance is acceptable to our saviour. The Orthodox Church understands "saints" to refer to the righteous, and it is in this context that our Patriarch, Bishops, and fathers (as quoted above) have clearly understood them, and even if you want to go with how the term is understood in a Biblical context, the most plausible liberal viewpoint you could take is that the term denotes “believers” – and again, you cannot presuppose that one has a second chance of being a “believer” after a death in sin and disbelief resulting from a continued resistance of His Grace.
As far as I am (and as far as all Copts should be) concerned, the Church has understood the term as a reference to those righteous, and hence ratified the interpretation of St Clement of Alexandria, Iranaeus and Hippolytus; and adhered to the most plausible exegesis of 1 Peter insofar as it remains consistent with both a) the immediate context - which proves that the disobedient of Noah’s generation remain in in the chains of darkness until they await their judgement, b) the outer Scriptural context - which proves that “all” have the opportunity to be saved, but that we make our choice in the here and now concerning the path we choose to take, according to how we respond to His Grace, and c) the extra-Biblical context – 1 Enoch which allows us to conclude that St Peter was making a point of Christ being a type of Enoch who proclaimed judgment (as opposed to salvation) against the disobedient.
And this whole linguistic business of "all", "every", "eternal", "never", etc. etc. and whether or not they can be rendered literally: Let's grant, for argument's sake that you and I have reached a stalemate on this issue. Then should not the outcome be decided on Patristic and/or rational basis? I say, "Yes." And both Patristics and Reason are on the side of the TOTAL emptying of Hades upon Christ's descent.
You can say what you wish, but you haven’t said anything of substance.
Reason? You have presented us with none. I have presented you with clear Biblical context that negates an extreme literal interpretation of "all" i.e. that each and every single person regardless of their moral or religious state at the point of death will ultimately be saved. The only reasonable conclusion you can come to regarding “all”, is as Grigorri put it, that “all” certainly have the chance to be saved, however the fact remains that no one will be saved contra to their free will, and the Biblical text makes it clear that via our free will, we make the choice concerning where we end up, in the here and now, and that such a choice is manfiest in our response to His grace - which calls us to repent and leads us to the truth. If we consistently resist His grace, and hence live an unrepentant life and die in our sins, we have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and such blasphemy is unforgivable. What do you not understand about unforgivable? Is it the “Un” or the “forgivable” that you do not get?
Patristics? We have already proven that patristic understanding was neither unanimous nor universal, and that many of your quotations come from those who held to the doctrine of apokastasis, which would directly influence their understanding of Christ’s ministry in hades. Furthermore, I have shown that the Church which possesses the authority, has ratified the patristic quotes that I have presented, thus those which you present to the contrary are meaningless.
I would actually call the position you (take "your" in the singular or plural....however you like) take the "liberal" one, insofar as hardly any Father endorsed it in the first four centuries.
I would call my position the conservative and Orthodox one, insofar as it is the one endorsed by those theologians and fathers that the Church who possesses the authority has chosen to ratify. I would furthermore call my position sound, since it is at least consistent with the Biblical text as it is understood in its proper context.
In addition to the quotations of St Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus and Hippolytus, I present you with Justin Martyr:
"Since those who did that which is naturally, universally and eternally good are indeed pleasing to God, they shall thus be saved through Christ in the resurrection equally with the righteous men who were before them; such as Noah, and Enoch, and Jacob, and whoever else there be, along with those who have known this Christ, Son of God...." (Dialogue with Trypho 45)
Clearly, Justin Martyr recognises along with St Clement of Alexandria that those who were redeemed were those who were righteous like Noah. The point he is making, is that just as the righteous faithful were redeemed i.e. Noah and Co. then so too would the righteous gentiles who are righteous according to natural law be redeemed, upon their acceptance of faith in the Gospel.
Furthermore....did you notice in the icon that you uploaded for GJI on page 1, that those being released all have haloes of uncreated light around their heads? What does this tell you?
I know that this discussion has been focused on the Christ's descent into hades, however I would like to emphasise for those of you who wish to use the patristic quotations pasted by USMN on page 1 to imply from these, as the Mormons do, that there is a chance for mankind to repent in hades, that even those of whom you quoted would disagree with such a conclusions:
It is stated in Psalm 6:5: "In Hades who shall give You thanks?" (Psalm 6:5b). St John Chrysostom uses this quote to explain that neither thanksgiving nor repentence will be heard by those that die in sin.
"Let us then not make wailings for the dead simply, but for those who have died in sins. They deserve wailing; they deserve beating of the breast and tears. For tell me what hope is there, when our sins accompany us Thither, where there is no putting off sins? As long as they were here, perchance there was great expectation that they would change, that they would become better; but when they are gone to Hades, where nought can be gained from repentance (for it is written, “In Sheol, who shall give Thee thanks?”) (Psalm 6:5), are they not worthy of our amentation? Let us wail for those who depart hence in such sort; let us wail, I hinder you not; yet in no unseemly way... (St John Chrysostom commentary on Philippians).
I Revelations St John the apostle clearly tells us for who Hades/Sheol is reserved for.
He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Revelations 21:8-8).
The lake of fire is somethimg very different from Hades.
And you can take issue with the word "all" if you like, in which case I posit that also the word "eternal" does not always mean unending in Greek. But there's little wiggle room out of the statement that Hades was emptied.
As St. Cyril said "For having destroyed hell and opened the impassable gates for the departed spirits, He left the devil there abandoned and lonely" 7th Paschal Homily 2 (PG 77, 552 A).
If you want to call St. Cyril a Mormon be my guest.
As I have just proven to you, St John Chrysostom himself made a similar statement to that which you have pasted of St Cryil, yet elsewhere in commentating on an Old Testament passage, St John Chrysostom most clearly holds to the position that neither the thanksgiving nor repentance of those in hades is heard by our Lord.
Did St John Chrysostom thus contradict himself when he stated that the devil had “lost all” whom he was keeping? Not necessarily.
The fact of the matter is, neither St John Chrysostom’s quote nor that of St Cyril’s needs to be understood in a redemptive context.
Allow me to elucidate upon this matter with closer consideration to the Biblical context. A word often translated as “preached” or “made proclamation to” is the Greek keruso, which is often employed in respect of Christ’s proclaiming the Kingdom or the Apostles proclaiming the news of Christ’s resurrection and death. In contrast, a similar Greek word may also be rendered “preached” or “made proclamation to” and that is evaggelion. In contrast to kerusso, evaggelion is used in a redemptive context, especially by St Peter himself (See 1 Peter 1:12, 4:6, and 2:5). Guess which word St Peter employs in 1 Peter 3:19? You got it; kerusso. An interesting thing that Biblical exegete Ramsey notes in his commentary of 1 Peter is the link between the proclomation in the sense of a kerusso, with Mark 5:10-12, where the unclean spirits request a haven/refuge from Christ.
In reconciling the statements of St John Chrysostom, and hence re-interpreting that of St Cyril, we may indeed conclude with consideration to the above mentioned facts, that the effects of Christ’s ministry in respect to “all” those in hades, and not *just* the righteous, concerns the fact that their imprisonment became no longer inviolate – it was a matter of shift in authority; *all* were now under the sovereignty of Christ (which is also connected to the immediate context – verse 22 where it speaks of all powers being made subject to him) and now in His refuge, but not *all* were necessarily redeemed by Him. Only those righteous were redeemed and released in the sense that they were allowed to enter paradise with our Risen Saviour.
As I pointed out to UMSN in my previous post, St Peter himself clarifies that not *all* are *redeemed* in his second epistle when uses those disobedient spirits-nephilim of Noah's generation who, according to the Biblical account of Christ's descent into hades were the main object of his ministry, as an example of those who are reserved for judgement and eternal damnation (see 2 Pet. 2:4, 5, 9).
Comments
You may pass off the quotes u_stole_my_name posted if you like, but before you get flippant please consider that you are opposing St. Clement of Alexandria in this:
" Do not [the Scriptures] show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept ‘in ward and guard’?… And, as I think, the Saviour also exerts His might because it is His work to save; which accordingly He also did by drawing to salvation those who became willing, by the preaching [of the Gospel], to believe on Him, wherever they were. If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend, it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there…
...A righteous man, then, differs not, as righteous, from another righteous man, whether he be of the Law [Jew] or a Greek. For God is not only Lord of the Jews, but of all men... So I think it is demonstrated that God, being good, and the Lord powerful, save with a righteousness and equality which extend to all that turn to Him, whether here or elsewhere. "
As well as St. Cyril:
" …He showed the way to salvation not only to us, but also to the spirits in hell; having descended, He preached to those once disobedient, as Peter says. For it did not befit for love of man to be partial, but the manifestation of [this] gift should have been extended to all nature… Having preached to the spirits in hell and having said ‘go forth’ to the prisoners, and ‘show yourselves’ to those in prison on the third day, He resurrected His temple and again opens up to our nature the ascent to heaven, bringing Himself to the Father as the beginning of humanity, pledging to those on earth the grace of communion of the Spirit.
Death unwilling to be defeated is defeated; corruption is transformed; unconquerable passion is destroyed. While hell, diseased with excessive insatiability and never satisfied with the dead, is taught, even if against its will, that which it could not learn previously. For it not only ceases to claim those who are still to fall [in the future], but also lets free those already captured, being subjected to splendid devastation by the power of our Saviour... Having preached to the spirits in hell, once disobedient, He came out as conqueror by resurrecting His temple like a beginning of our hope and by showing to [our] nature the manner of the raising from the dead, and giving us along with it other blessings as well. "
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx
Don’t let anyone here tell you how you should use and consider patristic quotations. Let us settle this issue once and for all, you have a very simple choice to make a) you can listen to and submit to the God-given authority of the Church, and the manner in wich she regards her own tradition, or b) you can listen to the personal belief of others and their own usage of patristics.
Here is what His Holiness Pope Shenouda III has to say on the issue:
From page 68 of his book Doctrinal Theology: This is more or less EXACTLY what I have said: a) The souls of all the righteous/saints were released and b) The ministry/preaching aspect of Christ’s descent was also to proclaim victory over the powers of darkness as well as their impending judgement, specifically those fallen angels of Genesis 6 who chose to rebel against God.
I have shown how so far that a) is supported by St Clement of Alexandria and Iranaeus, and it will soon be shown that Hippolytus also adhered to this interpretation. I have also shown how b) is exegetically sound; it is the most plausible interpretation accounting for both extra-biblical context (1 Enoch) and the scriptural context.
Furthermore, Coptic theologian Ferial Moawad states in his Commentary on the first epistle of Peter, in relation to the verses in question: He then goes on to address the patristic explanations of this verse: This is indeed an interesting, yet plausible explanation. Hippolytus's explanation ratifies the interpretation of St Clement of Alexandria and Iraneus; that only the righteous were offered salvation. Furthermore In The Spirituality of The Praise According To The Rite Of The Coptic Orthodox Church, H.G. Bishop Anba Mettaous states on page 95: His Grace then goes on to state: In interpreting this further he emphasizes the connection between the three young saints and the righteous: In his Contemplations on the Resurrection, His Holiness Pope Shenouda reiterates the same principle mentioned above in point a) when he states on page 113: And again on page 78 of Many Years with the Peoples Questions Volume II, he states that the purpose of Christ’s descent into hades was to: Again, it is the interpretation of St Clement, Iranaeus, and Hippolytus that our Church exemplifies on this issue.
In The Work of the Cross by Coptic theologian Maged Attia, he states on page 12: Again, it is the interpretation of St Clement, Iranaeus and Hippolytus that our Church exemplifies on this issue.
In the Fraction To The Son For the Resurrection of the Coptic Liturgy it states: Via poetic parallel, the freed captives are equated with the uplifted Saints. Again, only the righteous from were redeemed from hades.
Fr Tadros Malaty also raitifies the patristic understanding that only the righteous were vindicated from hades when he states in his book Christ in the Eucharist on page 102: Fr. Tadros Malaty states also in his commentary of 1 Samuel states in relation to the events of chapter 17: Peace.
GJI,
b) you can listen to the personal belief of others and their own usage of patristics.
Those patristic quotations are not my "personal belief", they are the personal beliefs of Sts. Clement and Cyril. And if you read the page where these quotations were taken from, which I have given the link to three times, you would see that these are not in the least a "personal opinion". It is the "opinion" of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev. If we wish to argue with him be my guest. I must warn you, however, that you are sure to lose. He is the most knowledgable Orthodox theologian alive today. Please read http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx for his article on this issue and consider it carefully before you make more conclusions on this issue.
Iqbal, are you angry with me?
In any event the fact of the matter is that patristic understanding on this issue is not unanimous, therefore there are those who according to their personal belief will vindicate one interpretation over another.
I don't have a problem with either of the quotations you have presented in your last post. Neither of them prove that the souls of all (including the unrighteous) in pre-Incarnation times, were saved.
As shown elsewhere, St Clement makes it clear that only the righteous (both Jew - righteous according to the Torah, and Gentile - righteous according to natural law) were offered salvation. My point has been made; our Coptic Bishops have spoken, our Coptic Patriarch has spoken, our Coptic theolgians and priests have spoken; I have quoted all of them above; it is obvious that the Coptic Church, in both adhering to tradition and being consistent with the Biblical text, has ratified the interpretation of St Clement, Iraeneous, and Hippolytus i.e. that the righteous Old Testament saints; those who hoped in the resurrection, are the ones who were redeemed. Case closed as far as Im concerned. No.
Peace
As I said, I am open to correction; especially from you specifically, since I highly regard and respect you, and consider you a teacher and friend - one who has helped me considerably with regards to many issues both doctrinal and spiritual, in the past. I will look further into this issue, since as far as I know, he directly condemned the doctrine of universal salvation itself. I never equated the two; I simply declared that they are indeed interrelated for both rely upon the principle that the unrepentant sinner who dies in sin, may still possibly gain salvation. I respect your wish, however I cannot empathize with your perspective on this for as far as I’m concerned I believe the scriptures have made it clear, and certainly many authorities have spoken decisively on the subject, including the latest work I read by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy. This is not about usurping Christ’s prerogative of Righteous Judge of the dead, nor does it have anything to do with egotism, it is simply a matter of (as far as I, and many of our hierarchs and fathers are concerned) witnessing to and reiterating the divine testimony itself. I have said all I have to say on the descent into Hades issue I believe: a) The scriptures (1 Peter 3:18-20 specifically) do not even hint at the argument that the souls of all the unrighteousness were saved b) Those who were ministered to in hades were a specific people of a specific time period namely the pre-flood age; as indicated not only the Biblical text but by many of the fathers c) Proper exegesis leads us to conclude that Christ’s ministry was not redemptive, though this does not necessarily negate the fact that redemption was an additional aspect to the primary aspect implied in the Scriptures d) Patristic tradition is neither universal nor unanimous e) I have proven above in my second last post, that respected figures who represent the Coptic Church; our Patriarch (H.H. Shenouda III), Bishops (e.g. Anba Mettaous), theologians (e.g. Moawad), and reverend fathers (e.g. Fr Tadros Malaty), all ratify the interpretations of St Clement, Iranaeus, and Hipppolytus i.e. that only the righteous Old Testament Saints, who died in hope of the resurrection, were the ones that were redeemed.
Peace.
As shown elsewhere, St Clement makes it clear that only the righteous (both Jew - righteous according to the Torah, and Gentile - righteous according to natural law) were offered salvation.
it is obvious that the Coptic Church, in both adhering to tradition and being consistent with the Biblical text, has ratified the interpretation of St Clement, Iraeneous, and Hippolytus i.e. that the righteous Old Testament saints; those who hoped in the resurrection, are the ones who were redeemed.
First St. Clement says that both righteous Jews and Gentiles were saved. Then St. Clement says that only righteous OT saints who hoped in the resurrection were saved. Excuse me if I have problems interpretating St. Clement as a confused psychophrenic. I believe St. Clement to say quite clearly that all Gentiles who believed in Christ's preaching when He was in hades was saved. And for St. Clement this was not dependent on whether or not they were aware of a coming of a Messiah. Say what you wish on this subject, but let us not misrepesent St. Clement's teaching.
And St. Cyril never says in that only the OT saints were the ones saved from Hades by Christ.
You cite Irenaeus and Hippolytus in your defense. Read http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx paragraph 2 and you will see why I find this so telling and worrisome.
a) The righteous (according to the Torah) Old Testament saints who died in hope of the resurrection, and;
b) The righteous gentiles (according to their own philosophies and natural law).
Therefore, no unrighteous were saved; and this is the point of this discussion. I see nothing worrisome; tell me what I am missing.
Read the many Biblical verses which declare as a consistent whole, that unrepentent sinners who die in their sins will not inherit the kingdrom, as well as the above listed authorities of the Coptic Church who ratify the fact that only the righteous were saved from hades, and then you will see why I find your position worrisome.
Peace.
Perhaps you would like to say where you see Hippolytus and Irenaeus saying that only the OT righteous who believed in the Messiah were saved.
From Irenaeus I find:
The Lord God remembered His dead from the people of Israel, who had fallen asleep in the soil of the Earth, and descended to them and preached to them His salvation that they might be saved.” (Dialouge with Trypho 72)
and:
“This was sign of raising up the souls through the wood of the tree, on which He died, He Who was able to raise up the souls who would follow His ascent. For this wood (of the cross), too, had the characteristic of raising many souls which made their appearance in bodies, when the Holy Soul of Christ made Its descent (into Hell).” (Commentary on IV Kings 6:6)
And for Hippolytus:
" He is the One Who pulled up from the lowest Hell the first man who was from the Earth and had been lost, having been held captive by the bonds of death. He is the One Who descended from above and brought above him who was down below. He is the One Who preached the Gospel to the dead and redeemed the souls, Who became the resurrection of those that had been buried… He was the Helper of the man who had been conquered; the One Who assimilated Himself with him… the Noble One Who wants to restore to the slave to freedom through His Own obedience " (Commenting on Deuteronomy 33.26, quoted in Theodoret’s Eranistes)
and:
“This is why ‘The Portals of Hell quaked when they saw you (Job 38.7),’ and the gates of brass were broken to pieces, and the iron bars were shattered. For behold, the Only-Begotten entered in as a Soul among souls; God the Word clothed with a soul; for the Body was laid in a grave, not emptied of the Godhead, but being present in Hell, He was in His essence with the Father, and thus, He was both in the body and in Hell; for the Son is uncontained, like the Father, and contains all things; but He willed to be contained in a soul-endowed body, so that he might go into Hell with His own soul, and not with His bare Godhead.”
(Preserved by Nicetas the Deacon in his Catena of Patristic exegesis on the Gospel according to Luke)
You can see all those quotes at http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/170/Understanding the Resurrection.htm
And just to be clear, not just paragraph 2 of Bishop Hilarion's article, but all of section 2.
I quoted and referenced the work of Iraneus on page 3 of this thread:
"For this reason it was, that the Lord made His descent into the lower regions beneath the earth, proclaiming and preaching His advent there, and pronouncing the remission of sins that was received by those who believe in Him. Now it was that all those believed in Him and who had hope towards Him; those who proclaimed and prophesied of His advent, and who submitted to His dispensations; those righteous men, the patriarchs and the prophets…" Against Heresies Bk. 4 ch.27
With regards to Hippolytus he states:
"He arranged everything on earth; therefore, He became man to restore to us our image through Himself, also He arranged everything under the earth for He was numbered with the dead preaching the Gospel to the souls of the saints who died on the hope of the resurrection. Through death, He conquered death."
I cannot reference this to a primary source yet; I reference it to Ferial Moawad's translation of Fr. Tadros Malaty's Commentary on the First Epistle of St Peter.
I will read section 2 of that article next time I have the chance, I have been online for too long today.
Peace.
All you have shown are passages referring to the release of the saints from Hades. You have yet to show passages referring to the exclusive release of the saints from Hades.....two totally different things.
By that same logic, you could say that when Christ left the 99 to find the one sheep, that he meant He would exclusively rescue that one sheep....leaving all the rest to be plundered by savage wolves.
And even granting that saints and only saints were released from Hades, then how do we define "saints"? Can those in Hades who repented of their previous un-righteousness at the descent of Christ not be considered "saints", insofar as anyone who repents is a saint?
And this whole linguistic business of "all", "every", "eternal", "never", etc. etc. and whether or not they can be rendered literally: Let's grant, for argument's sake that you and I have reached a stalemate on this issue. Then should not the outcome be decided on Patristic and/or rational basis? I say, "Yes." And both Patristics and Reason are on the side of the TOTAL emptying of hades upon Christ's descent.
And no....my being a "liberal" is meant strictly in reference to my political views. I would actually call the position you (take "your" in the singular or plural....however you like) take the "liberal" one, insofar as hardly any Father endorsed it in the first four centuries.
Hello U_stole_my_name,
May I ask you politely what is your denomination? If you do not want to answer, it is O.K., I respect your option.
I'm Eastern Orthodox (Antiochian). For the past few months I've been leaning towards the idea of converting to Coptic (OO) for Christological, ecclesiological, and personal reasons. I have been hanging out (I try not to "troll", but sometimes it just works out that way) on Coptic web-sites and going to Coptic Liturgies for the past few months to get some "feel" for it. But with this latest issue (i.e. the one we are presently discussing), I'm not so sure anymore. The EO Church is more "open-ended" with this issue (unless, of course, one wants to pretend that an Emperor's decisions are binding on the Body of Christ, which is knee-slappably laughable), so I'll probably stick to EO for now.
But I hope this recent heat doesn't prevent you all from being friends with me.... :-[ :-\
God guide us all, and enlighten our minds, hearts and understanding.
Mr. Iqbal...please correct me if I'm wrong, but our coptic orthodox church is one of LIFE...NOT a philosophical brain game...what I mean is, we don't just pitch verses against each other as if they were bombs...or patrological quotes (OF MY OWN REASONING) too...like H.H Bishop Rofaeil once said...u can't give a baby a book to tell him/her how to walk...but you must urself teach the child how to walk...u can't verbally explain it...u have to go through it urself....
That's my point...USMN...please try to understand this...people here are zeaolous about refuting simply because, as Iqbal once said...we FOLLOW tradition and belief...we don't CREATE...(and NONE of the Popes did by the way...Mr. Iqbal might be better than me in this...but I don't need any proofs, because God that said that The Gates of Hell will not overcome the Church will protect me from such heresies)...besides, not even the church says 2+2=5...if there's an inconsistency in anything...then u have the right to question it...NOT BECUASE YOU PUT UR OPINION on what is right, but trying to HUMBLY understand the church's view...some things we truly find bigger than us...fine...we submit to the Church...She knows better...meaning general history and way of life, which I again emphasize...meaning the church teaches so-and-so, and I say the CHURCH and not a person, then that's right...and we don't try to refute it from itself...because most likely WE don't understand something...
Will continue later...I'm bust now
RFZ
Furthermore, as I clearly have proven so, far Christ’s ministry was with regards to a specific people of a specific age i.e. Noah’s generation. This is not only made clear by the Biblical text, but it is also according to Fr. Tadros Malaty, the viewpoint of St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Jerome. The fact that not “all” were saved in a literal sense, is made clear by St Peter the Apostle himself, in his second epistle (see 2 Pet. 2:4, 5, 9) where he uses those very fallen and disobedient nephilim of Noah’s day as an example of those being reserved for eternal damnation. Twisting or employing patristic quotations in a manner that forces St Peter to directly contradict himself in-between epistles, is hardly going to give you a reasonable conclusion. No, you are inventing your own interpretation, and presuming what you have yet to prove i.e. that one does in fact have the chance to repent after their death, and that this repentance is acceptable to our saviour. The Orthodox Church understands "saints" to refer to the righteous, and it is in this context that our Patriarch, Bishops, and fathers (as quoted above) have clearly understood them, and even if you want to go with how the term is understood in a Biblical context, the most plausible liberal viewpoint you could take is that the term denotes “believers” – and again, you cannot presuppose that one has a second chance of being a “believer” after a death in sin and disbelief resulting from a continued resistance of His Grace.
As far as I am (and as far as all Copts should be) concerned, the Church has understood the term as a reference to those righteous, and hence ratified the interpretation of St Clement of Alexandria, Iranaeus and Hippolytus; and adhered to the most plausible exegesis of 1 Peter insofar as it remains consistent with both a) the immediate context - which proves that the disobedient of Noah’s generation remain in in the chains of darkness until they await their judgement, b) the outer Scriptural context - which proves that “all” have the opportunity to be saved, but that we make our choice in the here and now concerning the path we choose to take, according to how we respond to His Grace, and c) the extra-Biblical context – 1 Enoch which allows us to conclude that St Peter was making a point of Christ being a type of Enoch who proclaimed judgment (as opposed to salvation) against the disobedient. You can say what you wish, but you haven’t said anything of substance.
Reason? You have presented us with none. I have presented you with clear Biblical context that negates an extreme literal interpretation of "all" i.e. that each and every single person regardless of their moral or religious state at the point of death will ultimately be saved. The only reasonable conclusion you can come to regarding “all”, is as Grigorri put it, that “all” certainly have the chance to be saved, however the fact remains that no one will be saved contra to their free will, and the Biblical text makes it clear that via our free will, we make the choice concerning where we end up, in the here and now, and that such a choice is manfiest in our response to His grace - which calls us to repent and leads us to the truth. If we consistently resist His grace, and hence live an unrepentant life and die in our sins, we have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and such blasphemy is unforgivable. What do you not understand about unforgivable? Is it the “Un” or the “forgivable” that you do not get?
Patristics? We have already proven that patristic understanding was neither unanimous nor universal, and that many of your quotations come from those who held to the doctrine of apokastasis, which would directly influence their understanding of Christ’s ministry in hades. Furthermore, I have shown that the Church which possesses the authority, has ratified the patristic quotes that I have presented, thus those which you present to the contrary are meaningless. I would call my position the conservative and Orthodox one, insofar as it is the one endorsed by those theologians and fathers that the Church who possesses the authority has chosen to ratify. I would furthermore call my position sound, since it is at least consistent with the Biblical text as it is understood in its proper context. It seems best for you that way.
Peace.
In addition to the quotations of St Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus and Hippolytus, I present you with Justin Martyr:
"Since those who did that which is naturally, universally and eternally good are indeed pleasing to God, they shall thus be saved through Christ in the resurrection equally with the righteous men who were before them; such as Noah, and Enoch, and Jacob, and whoever else there be, along with those who have known this Christ, Son of God...." (Dialogue with Trypho 45)
Clearly, Justin Martyr recognises along with St Clement of Alexandria that those who were redeemed were those who were righteous like Noah. The point he is making, is that just as the righteous faithful were redeemed i.e. Noah and Co. then so too would the righteous gentiles who are righteous according to natural law be redeemed, upon their acceptance of faith in the Gospel.
Peace.
Furthermore....did you notice in the icon that you uploaded for GJI on page 1, that those being released all have haloes of uncreated light around their heads? What does this tell you?
Peace.
I know that this discussion has been focused on the Christ's descent into hades, however I would like to emphasise for those of you who wish to use the patristic quotations pasted by USMN on page 1 to imply from these, as the Mormons do, that there is a chance for mankind to repent in hades, that even those of whom you quoted would disagree with such a conclusions:
It is stated in Psalm 6:5: "In Hades who shall give You thanks?" (Psalm 6:5b). St John Chrysostom uses this quote to explain that neither thanksgiving nor repentence will be heard by those that die in sin.
"Let us then not make wailings for the dead simply, but for those who have died in sins. They deserve wailing; they deserve beating of the breast and tears. For tell me what hope is there, when our sins accompany us Thither, where there is no putting off sins? As long as they were here, perchance there was great expectation that they would change, that they would become better; but when they are gone to Hades, where nought can be gained from repentance (for it is written, “In Sheol, who shall give Thee thanks?”) (Psalm 6:5), are they not worthy of our amentation? Let us wail for those who depart hence in such sort; let us wail, I hinder you not; yet in no unseemly way... (St John Chrysostom commentary on Philippians).
I Revelations St John the apostle clearly tells us for who Hades/Sheol is reserved for.
He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Revelations 21:8-8).
Peace.
The lake of fire is somethimg very different from Hades.
And you can take issue with the word "all" if you like, in which case I posit that also the word "eternal" does not always mean unending in Greek. But there's little wiggle room out of the statement that Hades was emptied.
As St. Cyril said "For having destroyed hell and opened the impassable gates for the departed spirits, He left the devil there abandoned and lonely" 7th Paschal Homily 2 (PG 77, 552 A).
If you want to call St. Cyril a Mormon be my guest.
As I have just proven to you, St John Chrysostom himself made a similar statement to that which you have pasted of St Cryil, yet elsewhere in commentating on an Old Testament passage, St John Chrysostom most clearly holds to the position that neither the thanksgiving nor repentance of those in hades is heard by our Lord.
Did St John Chrysostom thus contradict himself when he stated that the devil had “lost all” whom he was keeping? Not necessarily.
The fact of the matter is, neither St John Chrysostom’s quote nor that of St Cyril’s needs to be understood in a redemptive context.
Allow me to elucidate upon this matter with closer consideration to the Biblical context. A word often translated as “preached” or “made proclamation to” is the Greek keruso, which is often employed in respect of Christ’s proclaiming the Kingdom or the Apostles proclaiming the news of Christ’s resurrection and death. In contrast, a similar Greek word may also be rendered “preached” or “made proclamation to” and that is evaggelion. In contrast to kerusso, evaggelion is used in a redemptive context, especially by St Peter himself (See 1 Peter 1:12, 4:6, and 2:5). Guess which word St Peter employs in 1 Peter 3:19? You got it; kerusso. An interesting thing that Biblical exegete Ramsey notes in his commentary of 1 Peter is the link between the proclomation in the sense of a kerusso, with Mark 5:10-12, where the unclean spirits request a haven/refuge from Christ.
In reconciling the statements of St John Chrysostom, and hence re-interpreting that of St Cyril, we may indeed conclude with consideration to the above mentioned facts, that the effects of Christ’s ministry in respect to “all” those in hades, and not *just* the righteous, concerns the fact that their imprisonment became no longer inviolate – it was a matter of shift in authority; *all* were now under the sovereignty of Christ (which is also connected to the immediate context – verse 22 where it speaks of all powers being made subject to him) and now in His refuge, but not *all* were necessarily redeemed by Him. Only those righteous were redeemed and released in the sense that they were allowed to enter paradise with our Risen Saviour.
As I pointed out to UMSN in my previous post, St Peter himself clarifies that not *all* are *redeemed* in his second epistle when uses those disobedient spirits-nephilim of Noah's generation who, according to the Biblical account of Christ's descent into hades were the main object of his ministry, as an example of those who are reserved for judgement and eternal damnation (see 2 Pet. 2:4, 5, 9).
Peace.