Names of kings and cities in Genesis 14:2

The following is purely my speculation, I do not claim to know Hebrew or be a scholar.

Some of the names in the Bible are extremely symbolic and therefore possibly are not real names. No good parent would name their son "in wickedness." The names of the cities were likely given after the fact, we know this be the case with Zoar, as it is written:

Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.--Genesis 19:22

Genesis 19 was when the cities were being destroyed and here we see the city Zoar being named because of the events of Genesis 19, yet this city is named much earlier in Genesis 13:10.  Perhaps, the other cities were likewise. If the cities were named (or renamed) perhaps the names of the kings in Genesis 14 were likewise?

Genesis 14:2 the kings of the cities God would later destroy were named:

they made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela--the same is Zoar.--Genesis 14:2

עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה, אֶת-בֶּרַע מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם, וְאֶת-בִּרְשַׁע, מֶלֶךְ עֲמֹרָה; שִׁנְאָב מֶלֶךְ אַדְמָה, וְשֶׁמְאֵבֶר מֶלֶךְ צְבֹיִים, וּמֶלֶךְ בֶּלַע, הִיא-צֹעַר

They had an ally, the King of Salem, the city believed to be the future Jerusalem:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High. --Genesis 14:18

וּמַלְכִּי-צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם, הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן; וְהוּא כֹהֵן, לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן

Bera--בֶּרַע
 Bera--בֶּרַע who is called King of Sodom, his name seems to mean "in evil", as it is used in Exodus 5:

And the officers of the children of Israel did see [that] they [were] in evil [בְּרָע --b'ra]  [case], after it was said, Ye shall not minish [ought] from your bricks of your daily task. --Exodus 5:19 KJV 1611

וַיִּרְאוּ שֹׁטְרֵי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֹתָם--בְּרָע לֵאמֹר:  לֹא-תִגְרְעוּ מִלִּבְנֵיכֶם, דְּבַר-יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ.

Genesis rabbah states:

....Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa would [also] expound names. “Bera” – as he was a wicked son [ben ra]; --Genesis Rabbah 42

Midrash:

They made war against Bera because he was wicked [ra' רַע] in the sight of God [literally heaven] and man; --Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8

עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה אֶת בֶּרַע, שֶׁהָיָה רַע לַשָּׁמַיִם וְלַבְּרִיּוֹת. --Midrash Tanchuma

Concerning the city of Sodom, prior to its destruction, the scriptures call it "evil" and "sinful" using the same root word that the king's name has--ra'.

and the men of Sodom are evil [ra'im רָעִים], and sinners before Jehovah exceedingly.--Genesis 13:13

וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם, רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים, לַיהוָה, מְאֹד

Sodom סְדֹם

The name of Sodom סְדֹם s'dom is spelled the same as the Hebrew word for "their secret" or "their council," or "their deliberation." Modern Hebrew still uses the word sod to mean secret or mystery which is used in another context in Genesis.

Into their secret [b'sodam בְּסֹדָם], come not, O my soul! Unto their assembly be not united, O mine honour; For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will eradicated a prince.--Genesis 49:6 Young's Literal Translation

בְּסֹדָם אַל-תָּבֹא נַפְשִׁי, בִּקְהָלָם אַל-תֵּחַד כְּבֹדִי:  כִּי בְאַפָּם הָרְגוּ אִישׁ, וּבִרְצֹנָם עִקְּרוּ-שׁוֹר  

Perhaps referring to the sin of Sodomy? However, by the time they were destroyed according to Genesis 19 it was out in the open.

Strong's Concordance claims it can mean "burning" or "scorched," but I cannot find evidence for this claim.

Birsha בִּרְשַׁע

The next name, Birsha בִּרְשַׁע the king of Gomorrah, his name seems to mean "in wickedness" or "in iniquity" as it is used in Psalm 141 

Incline not my heart to an evil thing, To do habitually actions in wickedness [בְּרֶשַׁע b'resha] , With men working iniquity, Yea, I eat not of their pleasant things.--Psalm 141:4 Young's Literal Translation

אַל-תַּט-לִבִּי    לְדָבָר רָע,
לְהִתְעוֹלֵל עֲלִלוֹת    בְּרֶשַׁע--
אֶת-אִישִׁים    פֹּעֲלֵי-אָוֶן;
וּבַל-אֶלְחַם,    בְּמַנְעַמֵּיהֶם 

Genesis rabbah states:

“Birsha” – as he was an evil son [ben rasha]; --Genesis Rabbah 42

Midrash:

they made war upon Birsha because he had behaved evilly [רָשָׁע rasha]; --Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8

בִּרְשַׁע, שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה רָשָׁע. --Midrash Tanchuma, Lecha Lecha 8

 Gomorrah  עֲמֹרָה 

The city name Gomorrah  עֲמֹרָה most resembles the word 'omer עֹמֶר which is a Biblical unit for measuring grains, its roughly 3 liters of grains. 

This [is] the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer [עֹמֶר] for every man, [according to] the number of your persons; take ye every man for [them] which [are] in his tents.--Exodus 16:16

זֶה הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, לִקְטוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ:  עֹמֶר לַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת, מִסְפַּר נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם--אִישׁ לַאֲשֶׁר בְּאָהֳלוֹ, תִּקָּחוּ

Maybe this alludes to them having lots of grains or food? Concerning the cities destroyed Ezekiel 16 states they had a lot of bread (which can be measured in omers)::

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.--Ezekiel 16:49

 We are told the cities of the plain were well watered so much so it was like the Garden of Eden, causing Lot to move there:

all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou goest unto Zoar. --Genesis 13:10

Part of the irony of the destruction of the cities was it went from water, rich soil, and fertile to fire scorched, soil and brimstone contaminated soil, and desolate. 

Perhaps, the city's name is portmanteau which means "disobedient people" or "rebellious people" since the word for "he rebels" is marah:

And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said: 'It is the man of God, who rebelled [מָרָה marah] against the word of the LORD; therefore the LORD hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke unto him.--1 Kings 13:26

וַיִּשְׁמַע הַנָּבִיא, אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ מִן-הַדֶּרֶךְ, וַיֹּאמֶר אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים הוּא, אֲשֶׁר מָרָה אֶת-פִּי יְהוָה; וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ יְהוָה לָאַרְיֵה, וַיִּשְׁבְּרֵהוּ וַיְמִתֵהוּ, כִּדְבַר יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר-לוֹ 

 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious [ וּמֹרֶה umoreh], he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.--Deuteronomy 21:20

וְאָמְרוּ אֶל-זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ, בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה--אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ, בְּקֹלֵנוּ; זוֹלֵל, וְסֹבֵא

'am is a common Hebrew word for people

And the LORD said, Behold, the people [עַם 'am] [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.--Genesis 11:6

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, הֵן עַם אֶחָד וְשָׂפָה אַחַת לְכֻלָּם, וְזֶה, הַחִלָּם לַעֲשׂוֹת; וְעַתָּה לֹא-יִבָּצֵר מֵהֶם, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יָזְמוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת 

Rebellious people would make sense because they their evil is rebellion against God, but Genesis 14:3 also says they rebelled against the king they were subjugated to for the last 12 years.

Though seemingly less likely, the word resembles a portmanteau of  'am (people) and marah (bitter), in Exodus 15:23 the place of Marah had 'bitter' water. 

Still more others suggest other names that I cannot check out like "submersion." 

Shinab שִׁנְאָב

Shinab שִׁנְאָב (shin'av) the king of Admah, his name seems to mean "hate father." The words are not used in any sentence together in the Hebrew Bible that I can find. The second half of the name seems obvious--Av אָב means father, as in: 

Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father [av אָב ] of many nations have I made thee.--Genesis 17:5

וְלֹא-יִקָּרֵא עוֹד אֶת-שִׁמְךָ, אַבְרָם; וְהָיָה שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָהָם, כִּי אַב-הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם נְתַתִּיךָ

The first half is can be שִׁנְ shin which means "tooth" (Exodus 21:24 "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" or "ivory" (Amos 6:4) which considering the other names in Genesis 14 makes little sense. Or, it can be שִׁנְאָ which means "sleep" (Psalm 127:2) which also does not make a whole lot of sense. There is another option, though spelled slightly different in modern Hebrew lacking the dot on the topic right of the shin and having it instead on the top left making the letter called "sin", שָׂנֵא sana which means hate as in:

Neither will you set up a pillar, which the LORD you God hates [שָׂנֵא sana].--Deuteronomy 16:22

וְלֹא-תָקִים לְךָ, מַצֵּבָה, אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ. 

Since ancient Hebrew had the shin and sin written the same, and there were pretty much no diacritics at all, שָׂנֵא and שִׁנְאָ would be written the same--as שנא.  In this case, the name Shinav would "hates father." This could mean he hated his own father, or it could mean he hated God. Some like the Medieval French Rabbi Rashi claims this means he hated the heavenly Father. The name then probably means this king hated God.

Genesis Rabbah states:

“Shinav” – as he aspired [shoev] to wealth; --Genesis Rabbah 42

Midrash is in favor of "hates father":

they fought against Shinab because he detested [שׂוֹנֵא soné] the Heavenly Father [לָאָב la'av] ;--Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8

שִׁנְאָב, שֶׁהָיָה שׂוֹנֵא לָאָב שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם. -- Midrash Tanchuma Lech Lecha 8 

Admah אַדְמָה

The city's name was Admah אַדְמָה . The first man, as well as humanity in general, is called adam. However, words with the same spelling as Adam exist in scripture. Adamah mean soil, Adam's name refers to the fact he is spoken of as being made from dirt. The word can also mean red/brown like the color of soil. The word for blood is dam. The word for silence is dumah.

(Perfect match of letters): adamah אֲדָמָה --soil/ground here is an occurrence:

And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground [אֲדָמָה adamah]--Genesis 4:2

 וַתֹּסֶף לָלֶדֶת, אֶת-אָחִיו אֶת-הָבֶל; וַיְהִי-הֶבֶל, רֹעֵה צֹאן, וְקַיִן, הָיָה עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה

Perhaps the city is called "soil" or "earth" because it was fertile land as mentioned before.

(Close match): Adam אָדָם --adam or human, as in:

And the man [haadam הָאָדָם] gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam [וּלְאָדָם ul'adam] there was not found a help meet for him.--Genesis 2:20

וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ

Shemeber/shem'ever שֶׁמְאֵבֶר

The other Shemeber שֶׁמְאֵבֶר--is even less apparent. שֶׁמְ can mean "placing" שֶׂם  "sem" or "there" שָׁם as in "they got out of there," or "name" which in term can refer to authority, it is also the name of a son of Noah--Shem.

The word is used in the senses of "there" and "placing" is found in Genesis 2:

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put [וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם vayysem sham] the man whom He had formed. --Genesis 2:8

 וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר.

The meaning of "name" is found in Genesis 2:

The name of [שָׁם sham] the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;--Genesis 2:11

שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, פִּישׁוֹן--הוּא הַסֹּבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם, הַזָּהָב.

Eber אֵבֶר (ever) means wings as in:

And I said: 'Oh that I had wings (אֵבֶר ever) like a dove! then would I fly away, and be at rest.--Psalm 55:6(7)

וָאֹמַר--מִי-יִתֶּן-לִי אֵבֶר, כַּיּוֹנָה:    אָעוּפָה וְאֶשְׁכֹּנָה

Shem being the name of Noah's son is found in Genesis also:

Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem (שֵׁם), Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood.--Genesis 10:1

 וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת בְּנֵי-נֹחַ, שֵׁם חָם וָיָפֶת; וַיִּוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם בָּנִים, אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל 

Rashi claims it means to spring and rebel against God, but that seems like a stretch. Interestingly, there is tradition in the Early Christians and Jews that Shem is Melchizedek, if this is the case, perhaps its alluding to being an ally of Melchizedek--"Shem's wings"? 

Some suggest the shem part of the name is an abbreviated form of שמם which is often translated "desolation", as in:

He hath turned aside my ways, and pulled me in pieces: he hath made me desolate [שֹׁמֵם shomem].--Lamentations 3:11

 דְּרָכַי סוֹרֵר וַיְפַשְּׁחֵנִי, שָׂמַנִי שֹׁמֵם

The only issue would be one mem being dropped.

Still yet, there is another explanation that is offered from the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:

Shemebar, who had corrupted himself with fornication,--Genesis 14:2 of the Jerusalem Targum (pseudo-Jonathan)

ושמאבר דמחבל איבריה ליזניה

 Where איבריה (translated corrupted) which members "limb" is understood as an euphemism for penis as it is used in later Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. 

So, the name can potentially (and absurdly) mean "desolate penis" or "Shen

Then Genesis Rabbah has:

“Shemever” – as he would fly off to bring wealth; --Genesis Rabbah 42

Midrash:

 Shemeber because he had said, “I will ascend with a wing [בָּאֵבֶר ba'aver] above the heights of the clouds.”  --Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8

שֶׁמְאֵבֶר, שֶׁאָמַר אֶעֱלֶה בָּאֵבֶר עַל בָּמֳתֵי עָב. --Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8

Zeboiim צְבֹיִים tz'voyim

The name of the city Zeboiim is spelled at least 4 ways in scripture: צְבֹיִים tz'voyim (1 variant of Genesis 14:2's spelling), צבויים tz'voyim (other variant of Genesis 14:2), צְבֹיִם tz'voyim (Genesis 10:19), צְבֹאיִם tz'voyim (Hosea 11:8).  The word exists in 5 verses: Genesis 10:19, Genesis 14:2, Genesis 14:8, Deuteronomy 29:23, Hosea 11:8.   

[Perfect match for Hosea 11:8 spelling] The spelling Hosea 11:8 spelling צְבֹאיִם is found again in Numbers 31:42, which might imply the city is named for fighting/war:

And of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided off from the men that warred [הַצֹּבְאִים hatztzov'im]--Numbers 31:42

וּמִמַּחֲצִית, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר חָצָה מֹשֶׁה, מִן-הָאֲנָשִׁים הַצֹּבְאִים.

This does matched Genesis 14 which is about war. The word refers to a gathering for the purposes of fighting/war and is derived from Tzva, which is part of God's titles, "LORD of Hosts" "YHVH tzvaot" where tz'vaot or Tz'va referring to armies. Here is an instance in which tz'vaot "hosts" or "armies" is used, along with the related word for fight tzi'bo.

For thus saith the LORD unto me: Like as the lion, or the young lion, growling over his prey, though a multitude of shepherds be called forth against him, will not be dismayed at their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them; so will the LORD of hosts [צְבָאוֹת] come down to fight [לִצְבֹּא litz'bo] upon mount Zion, and upon the hill thereof. --Isaiah 31:4

כִּי כֹה אָמַר-יְהוָה אֵלַי כַּאֲשֶׁר יֶהְגֶּה הָאַרְיֵה וְהַכְּפִיר עַל-טַרְפּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר יִקָּרֵא עָלָיו מְלֹא רֹעִים, מִקּוֹלָם לֹא יֵחָת, וּמֵהֲמוֹנָם לֹא יַעֲנֶה; כֵּן, יֵרֵד יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, לִצְבֹּא עַל-הַר-צִיּוֹן, וְעַל-גִּבְעָתָהּ

[Perfect match 1 Chronicles 12:9]: There is an animal mentioned a few times in scripture, whose identity is debated some say is a hyena, gazelle, or a deer. Here is an instance of a perfect match for tz'vayim]

And of the Gadites there separated themselves unto David to the stronghold in the wilderness, mighty men of valour, men trained for war, that could handle shield and spear; whose faces were like the faces of lions, and they were as swift as the roes [צְבָאיִם tz'vayim] upon the mountains; --1 Chronicles 12:9

וּמִן-הַגָּדִי נִבְדְּלוּ אֶל-דָּוִיד לַמְצַד מִדְבָּרָה גִּבֹּרֵי הַחַיִל, אַנְשֵׁי צָבָא לַמִּלְחָמָה--עֹרְכֵי צִנָּה, וָרֹמַח; וּפְנֵי אַרְיֵה פְּנֵיהֶם, וְכִצְבָאיִם עַל-הֶהָרִים לְמַהֵר.

Bela בֶּלַע

Next, the next mention is the city of Bela בֶּלַע  Bela' which we have a perfect match for spelling for too where it means "swallow", "devour":

He hath swallowed [בָּלַע bala'] down riches, and he shall vomit them up again; God shall cast them out of his belly.--Job 20:15

חַיִל בָּלַע, וַיְקִאֶנּוּ;    מִבִּטְנוֹ, יֹרִשֶׁנּוּ אֵל.

The root of the word is also found in Genesis 41:7--

And the seven thin ears devoured [וַתִּבְלַעְנָה] the seven rank and full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and, behold, [it was] a dream.--Genesis 41:7

 וַתִּבְלַעְנָה, הַשִּׁבֳּלִים הַדַּקּוֹת, אֵת שֶׁבַע הַשִּׁבֳּלִים, הַבְּרִיאוֹת וְהַמְּלֵאוֹת; וַיִּיקַץ פַּרְעֹה, וְהִנֵּה חֲלוֹם.

The meaning "devoured" is confirmed in the Jewish targum pseudo-Jonathan:

the king of the city which consumed (Bela) the dwellers thereof, which is Zoar.  --Jerusalem Targum (pseudo Jonathan) Genesis 14:2

Likewise, Genesis Rabbah:

“and the king of Bela, which is Tzoar” – as its residents were swallowed up [nitbale’u]. --Genesis Rabbah 42

Zoar צֹעַר Tzo'ar

[Biblical explanation provided in scripture]: Finally, on the list of Genesis 14:2 we have the city of Zoar צֹעַר Tzo'ar, which is spelled צוֹעַר tzoar in 3 times in Genesis 19 (19:22, 19:30). The meaning of the name of the city of Tzo'ar is actually provided in Scripture, it was named after Genesis 19 because it was a little, insignificant, or young city that God did not rain fire and brimstone on, as we see:

Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one [מִצְעָר]; oh, let me escape thither--is it not a little one [מִצְעָר mitz'ar]?--and my soul shall live.' And he said unto him: 'See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city of which thou hast spoken. Hasten thou, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither.'--Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar [צוֹעַר tzo'ar].--Genesis 19:20-22

הִנֵּה-נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה, לָנוּס שָׁמָּה--וְהִוא מִצְעָר; אִמָּלְטָה נָּא שָׁמָּה, הֲלֹא מִצְעָר הִוא--וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו--הִנֵּה נָשָׂאתִי פָנֶיךָ, גַּם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה:  לְבִלְתִּי הָפְכִּי אֶת-הָעִיר, אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ. מַהֵר, הִמָּלֵט שָׁמָּה, כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר, עַד-בֹּאֲךָ שָׁמָּה; עַל-כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם-הָעִיר, צוֹעַר. 

Then, you have another king named Righteous King, Melki-tzedek, king of Salem (serenity), a type of Christ according to the Letter to the Hebrews. Though Shalem is interpreted as serenity, the original meaning according to some refers to the Cannanite god of evening Shalem. It is interesting in the Code of Hamurrabi (dated 1750 BC), Hammurabi is called "king of righteousness." Perhaps this was a common title used by kings?

Probably not their birth names.

Answering the LDS: Priesthood - Lost & Found: Evidences

In this article I will address the claims of this LDS apologist. Keep in mind in this response, who was responsible for the "great apostacy" who was responsible for replacing Apostles? The LDS position is the prophet/president is responsible, or at least the apostles, but do they even claim the Apostles appointed replacement after the time of Matthias?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z3Q51IqGGg&fbclid=IwAR0BzoyH-jMFUnB76dg1d_CmZoKqcjB4nIM_QCJBX-Yda3yFJTkOiNHg_kw


2:03

The Catholic is presenting is somewhat of a false dichotomy. There would be several alternatives if Catholics are wrong. Restorationist sects were a dime a dozen during the time of Joseph Smith. Furthermore, restorationism and the great apostacy is inconsistent with Scripture which Christ states he will be with the church til the end of the age and the gates of hades will not prevail against the church.

The LDS does not even believe in a total apostacy, the Apostle John never died according to D&C, what did he not keep the church afloat? Why did Joseph have to receive his authority through visions rather than a living apostle? John the most senior member of the 12, he was more deserving to be prophet than Joseph, John had seniority by 1700+ years by the time of Joseph Smith.

3:43 

the scriptures cited at anti-thetical to LDS theology. They are saying FIRST are apostles, SECOND are prophets. Meaning Apostles have authority greater than prophets. The prophets in the NT were subject to the Apostles and to Paul, they just aided them telling them about visions God gave them. This is the case of Agabeus and the female prophets who were the daughters of Phillip. New Testament prophets actually predicted the future, not made church policy.

Revelation 21:14 tell us the New Jerusalem has the names of the 12 Apostles written on its pillars:

The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb--Revelation 21:14

Furthermore, the LDS has 15 not 12, the Apostle Peter was one of the 12, but the currently LDS prophet has 12 under him plus 2 joining him in the first presidency. The NT says there are 12 pillars, not 13, not 15. If there are 12 names, then its certain the LDS prophet is not among them since is not part of the Quorum of the 12. The fact only 12 names are mentioned in Rev 21 shows there was not intention of perpetually replacing the Apostles. Rather, the apostles ordained bishops like Timothy who would exercise authority of their region.

Not only this, but in the NT the term apostle was expanded beyond the 12. Paul was not ordained an apostle by Peter, or the living apostles, but by the gather of presbyters in Acts 13:1-3 when the Spirit spoke to them. Paul and Barnabas were both counted as apostles in Acts 14:14. Later on in scripture others are called apostles, possibly even a woman named Junia, the term apostle just refers to someone sent out.

4:17

Acts 1:21-22 tells us the criteria to even be among those to be in the 12. The man had to have been with them since the Baptism of John, and had been with the 11 since the time Christ was crucified and resurrected. All the people that could have qualified to see this are dead, except according to D&C John the Apostle who is not among the present Quorum of the 12, or the first presidency, making the number of apostles over 12 again.

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us *all the time* that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,  *Beginning from the baptism of John**, unto that **same day* that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a **witness with us of his resurrection**.--Acts 1:21-22

5:07

All the Apostles, properly speaking--the 12, as well as Paul and Barnabas were long dead at this point. The qualifications for being among the 12 no longer could be met and there is no indication the 12 even intended to keep the number of the 12 after replacing Judas with Matthias. The apostles continued to ordained deacons and bishops/presbyters. Some were called Apostles beyond this because they were sent out as missionaries like Paul and Barnabas. St Ignatius himself was a disciple of John, yet he replies to understanding that the Apostles intended for there to be full replacements of them.  It is interesting that "college of apostles" is underlined. St Ignatius is called the presbyters the college of the apostles. He does this elsewhere in his Epistles too, for instance in the previous chapter of the same Epistle he writes:

It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ,--Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter 2

In his letter to the Magnesians he writes similar:

while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons--Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter 6 

When St Ignatius states in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, "Apart from these, there is no Church" here is not referring to "college" or "assembly of the apostles" but to all which he mentions in the previous sentence: bishop, presbyters, and deacons.

5:34

The claim is made that only Apostles can ordain bishops. Not only is this not what is stated, it is conveniently left out the mention of deacons along side bishops. If the same reasoning only Apostles can ordain bishops, according to the provided interpretation, then it must likewise follow that only Apostles can ordain deacons, yet the LDS do nor believe this either.

And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.--St Clement of Rome's Letter to the Corinthians: Chapter 42

If the 12 Apostles can appoint a replacement apostle, why can't bishop have the ability to replace bishops? In fact, Paul when he was ordained was not done so by the 12 Apostles in Acts 13:1-3.

What is meant by St Clement of Rome is to state the origin of the office of Bishop and deacon--the Apostles established these offices. This is why he calls the bishops the "first fruits" of the Apostles. Where does St Clement after this state that only apostles can appoint bishops? It should also be noted in Acts 1 the 12 Apostles are referred to as bishops, also.

8:42

A book by a Mormon and Catholic is quoted and a significant false claim is made that Pope Leo the Great was the first pope to assert universal authority. He only refers to the Mormon's statement by Alonzo Gaskill. Furthermore, without going on, its clear the Catholic writer of this book is not really in line with Church understanding of the LDS. The Catholic Church does not call Mormons "brothers and sisters in Christ" since the Church states Mormon baptisms are invalid, thus precluding them from being in Christ due to the seriously defection understanding of God in Mormon theology. But is Alonzo Gaskill's claim true that Pope Leo the Great was the Pope to reinject universal authority into the Church?

We see in St Clement of Rome, the very one quoted near the beginning of the video, this:

"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."--Clement of Rome[regn. c A.D.91-101],1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96),in JUR,I:7,12

St Irenaeus of Gaul states the Bishop of Rome possesses pre-eminent authority in the Church:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."--Irenaeus, Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

 The claim the keys were lost needs evidence, furthermore, bind and loosing was done by all the apostle as we are informed in Matthew 18. The claim that they keys can mean the ability to receive new revelation requires evidence. Jesus said the Pharisees in Matthew 23 had power to bind. In rabbinical literature the term bind and loose refers to deciding matters of Jewish law.

10:37

The speaker quotes another book, this time by another LDS Alexander B Morrison. This writer seems to contradict the claims by the other LDS writer cited--Alonzo Gaskill who does not seem to deny Catholic bishops descend from apostolic times, whereas Morrison says there is no proof for any of it.

To be continued.

Hypothetical about the canon of scripture

Picture yourself in the situation of a sola-scriptura Christian in the year 100. All the Apostles are dead, so you are just left with the Scriptures since you don't believe the church has the authority to declare the canon of scripture. You only knew one apostle's gospel narrative---Matthew, you read and accept his gospel, you have not seen or read other accounts, you heard some are floating around. Finally one day some comes to town saying they have a new fancy gospel by some guy you never heard of named Luke. And Luke also wrote another book named Acts of the Apostles. You are skeptical since you never heard of Luke, you read Matthew 10--Luke is not a name of an apostle, so you already question this narration. You look through the whole gospel of Matthew--you see no Luke mentioned anywhere (how can you trust this guy, doesn;t even pretend to be someone known or noteworthy). Despite your doubts already, you read Luke's gospel and Acts to give it a chance, if Luke is true, it won't say something contrary to what you know is scripture in Matthew.

So you start off with the genealogies---the book you know is scripture says Joseph's father is named Jacob (Matthew 1:16), but you read this new guy Luke and he says Joseph was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23). Your doubts increase, how could this Luke guy screw up so barely? Perhaps there is an explanation for this, but you have no reason to try to go out of your way on accepting the word of this guy who wasn't an apostle. You read much of the rest of Luke and see many things are in common with Matthew, making you think Luke just borrowed, corrupted and embellished MAtthew's writing--which irritates you. You look at the story of the passion, your gospel said Christ was crucified with two criminals--both mocked Christ. Luke claims one mocked Christ and the other defended Jesus and Jesus told him he would see him in the kingdom! Unbelievable, this Luke guy just have to act like he has special information, he is again contradicting what MAtthew 27 seems to plainly say. Matthew 27:3 said Judas killed himself by hanging, but before that he gave the money back he was paid for betraying Christ, the elders bought a field for foreigners, and the field is called field of blood because it was bought with the money that killed Christ, but Luke in Acts 1 said Judas bought a field himself but had a gruesome death that does not mention suicide, and says the field is called the field of blood because his blood and guts were everywhere. Luke is just getting too hard to believe. You conclude Luke probably has the same faith as you do, but his history is off, and contradicts scripture, since its contradicts what you know to be true, you burn the copy and Luke and Acts since Luke is obviously unreliable.

As a reminder for those who claim that the 4 Gospels were all accepted in the 1st century--this is only true of the group that is now the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but not true of the Ebionites.

Christ under the appearance of stone!

Many Protestants who object to calling Peter the rock in Matthew 16:18 will appeal to a completely unrelated mention of Christ as the rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4

and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.--1 Corinthians 10:4 

Now, obviously this is not talking about a rock used for building, but rather the rock mentioned in the Torah that the Israelites drank from after Moses struck it

Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.--Numbers 20:11

Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.--Exodus 17:6

Now, I have not met many Protestants that object to the rock being Christ since it says "the rock was Christ."  Some ignorant of the context initially deny it since they only are familiar with the verse when debating Matthew 16:18. However, what does this mean? Christ appeared to God's people in the Old Testament "under the appearance of stone" from which they drank (on more than one occasion), as St Paul calls the water that it produced "spiritual drink." This is important to note since St Paul speak later in the chapter and in the next chapter (11) about the Eucharist, in which those of us who profess the real presence believe Christ "under the appearance of bread and wine." After mentioning the stone in verse 4 St Paul states:

Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.--1 Corinthians 10:5 

This brings to mind a verse later in St Paul's discourse on the Eucharist in chapter 11.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.--1 Corinthians 11:27-30

youtube "hate speech"

YouTube recently changed their terms of service and removed one of my videos I made in  2014. YouTube declared it hate speech without providing reason, I appealed the decision using 300 words or less explaining the video did not even call homosexuality immoral, but merely pointed out one of the arguments in favor of it was built not awful logic. They upheld it. I doubt they ever listened to the video. I set it up in a logic format. This is not a surprise, large corporations are becoming increasing defensives of homosexuality, to the point of suppressing opposing views. Banning videos like mine disproves YouTube is a platform, but is giving more credence for it being a publisher that has to be legally held accountable for its content.

 

Did Jesus drink the Cup of God's wrath in the Garden?

Before Christ was arrested by the Romans, He prayed in the garden asking that the "cup" pass from Him:

AV Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].

AV Mark 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

AV Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. 

John's gospel makes a separate mention of the cup shortly after the Roman authorities appear:

AV John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Calvinists, as supporting evidence for Penal Substitutionary Atonement, claim the symbolic cup Jesus said He would drink from  is the Wrath of God (appealing to the book of Revelation 14:10's, and a few Old Testament references mentioning of a cup of wrath). However, when understanding the cup, we should look to Matthew's gospel itself. We see the mention of cup--ποτηριον occurs 7 times in the gospel narration:

AV Mt 10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold [water] only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

AV Mt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. 

AV Mt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father. 

AV Mt 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 

AV Mt 23:26 [Thou] blind Pharisee, cleanse first that [which is] within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 

AV Mt 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 

AV Mt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt]. 

AV Mt 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Since Jesus is speaking poetically, not about an actual cup in Matthew 26:37-42, we can rule out the mention of a literal cup like Matthew 10:42, 26:27. Since, Jesus is using a cup for a different purpose in Matthew 23:25-26, that is to say he is using it as an analogy of how the Pharisee are clean externally but inwardly dirty, we can remove this as matching the cup Jesus worried about drinking from.  This leaves us with only Matthew 20:22-23 left. The story is to tell the disciples the only way they will be exalted is to humble themselves, masters must become servants. When He talks about drinking of the cup, in another gospels he also adds they must be baptized with the baptism he will be baptized with.

They said to him, “We can.” Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink, you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;--Mark 10:39

Luke's gospel mentioning this baptism says:

There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!--Luke 12:50 

This last mention of anguish is like the anguish described in Matthew 26 while praying in the garden before His executioners arrived, as we read:

He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death--Matthew 26:37-38

Furthermore, it is interesting that it was the sons of Zebedee that asked said they would drink of the same cup as Christ, and in Matthew 26:37 it says three disciples were asked to wait as Jesus prayer: Peter and the sons of Zebedee. Perhaps, He wanted them to have a first hand glimpse of the cup? James would later die in Acts 12 as a martyr, John would be the only Apostle not to die a martyr's death though tradition says he would be boiled alive and live. Peter, the chief apostle, would be told by Christ in John 21 he will be crucified, as tradition says he was in Rome.

Returning to the issue of Reformed theology, how can the cup of Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42 be the wrath of God if two of the Apostle drank from the same cup? The answer is simple. The cup is not the wrath of God. It is a cup that represents suffering and sorrow--they would suffer at the hands of the very people they wanted to help. 

However, what do Reformed apologists do to avoid this treasured piece of evidence from being discounted as evidence that Jesus drank the cup of wrath? Say it the same but different cup:

"Christ was not indicating that James and John would atone for the sins of others—the grammar of His original question makes it impossible for Him to agree that the disciples could offer atonement. Instead, Jesus was pointing to the fact that in a sense, they would share in the ordeal Christ was about to undergo in Jerusalem. In other words, they would not escape suffering for the name of Jesus."--Ligonier.org "The Cup that Jesus drinks"

While admitting they are the same cup, in order to avoid the logical sacrilege implied by mere human apostles drinking the same cup of wrath, they say it means something else--that they would also suffer for Christ.

Premise 1: Jesus would drink a cup.
Premise 2: Two apostles were told they would drink the same cup.
Premise 3: Apostles cannot suffer the wrath of God as in the sense Calvinists suppose Christ suffered.
Conclusion: The cup was not the cup of wrath, therefore Matthew 26:42 cannot be used as support for penal substitution.

Allah's two right hands

I watched a video by Anthony Roger's on Allah's hands being literal hands. He posted a source from Sahih Muslim 1827 but I couldn't find it on the old USC page, I did however find it in another place:

The Prophet [SAW] said: "Those who are just and fair will be with Allah, Most High, on thrones of light, at the right hand of the Most Merciful, those who are just in their rulings and in their dealings with their families and those of whom they are in charge." Muhammad (one of the narrators) said in his Hadith: "And both of His hands are right hands."--Sunan an-Nasa'i 5379, Book 49, Hadith 1

أَخْبَرَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو، ح وَأَنْبَأَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ آدَمَ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنِ ابْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ دِينَارٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَوْسٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ إِنَّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى عَلَى مَنَابِرَ مِنْ نُورٍ عَلَى يَمِينِ الرَّحْمَنِ الَّذِينَ يَعْدِلُونَ فِي حُكْمِهِمْ وَأَهْلِيهِمْ وَمَا وَلُوا ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ فِي حَدِيثِهِ ‏"‏ وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ ‏"‏‏.‏

 وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ being the Arabic for "and both of his hands are right hands." This passage is graded "sahih" authentic.

Later, I found out that the same website contains it as listed under Sahih Muslim 1827 as mentioned by Anthony!

Behold! the Dispensers of justice will be seated on the pulpits of light beside God, on the right side of the Merciful, Exalted and GlorioUS. Either side of the Being is the right side both being equally mrneritorious. (The Dispensers of justice are) those who do justice in their rules, in matters relating to their families and in all that they undertake to do.--Sahih Muslim 1827

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَزُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، وَابْنُ، نُمَيْرٍ قَالُوا حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ عَنْ عَمْرٍو، - يَعْنِي ابْنَ دِينَارٍ - عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَوْسٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، قَالَ ابْنُ نُمَيْرٍ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ يَبْلُغُ بِهِ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَفِي حَدِيثِ زُهَيْرٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ إِنَّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ عَلَى مَنَابِرَ مِنْ نُورٍ عَنْ يَمِينِ الرَّحْمَنِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ الَّذِينَ يَعْدِلُونَ فِي حُكْمِهِمْ وَأَهْلِيهِمْ وَمَا وَلُوا ‏"‏ ‏.‏

 Despite the translation with the typos and omitting the mention of a hand, we see the same phrase being used وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ

Turns out Christian prince has a video that discusses this. 

Islam's Muslim Travel ban

Liberals say having a ban on letting Muslim immigrate to the USA is bigoted against a religion. It is.

Yet, at least Shia Islamic sources and scholars say its forbidden for a Muslim to move to or even travel to a non Islamic country unless its for the purposes of preaching Islam or medical necessity.

Both of these Islamic website are against Muslim migration to non Muslim countries:

https://islamqa.info/…/can-muslims-settle-in-kaafir-countri…

https://www.al-islam.org/a-c…/migration-non-muslim-countries

I am still looking to see if Sunni Islam has a similar ban.

Muslim argument from Isaiah 29:12

Muhammed was illiterate, so Muslims look to the Bible for evidence that they will be an illiterate prophet. A verse some Muslims use is Isaiah 29:12.

Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read"--Isaiah 29:12

Some Muslims try to link this to Muhammed, since according to Islamic sources when Muhammed met Gabriel he was told to read, Muhammed said he can't. Therefore, since Muhammed can't read and some one mentioned in Isaiah 29:12 cannot read therefore, obviously the illiterate man is the prophet of Islam. That is, until we actually read the text of Isaiah 29 where its about Israel's inability to understand a vision without the help of prophet:

Be stunned and amazed, blind yourselves and be sightless; be drunk, but not from wine, stagger, but not from beer. The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep: He has sealed your eyes (the prophets); he has covered your heads (the seers). For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed.” Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”--Isaiah 29:9-12

We see God is depriving the people of a prophet/seer to be the people's eyes/head, without them understanding God's vision is like giving a document to a man that cannot open a scroll, or a man with a scroll that cannot read. That is to say, its a waste of time, futile. The illiterate man here is contrasted with the prophets, meaning the illiterate man is not a prophet.

Strange that there are Muslims would argue from this verse. 

Was Origen only condemned after death

Some presume that Origen of Alexandria was only named a heretic by ecclesial authorities posthumously, especially in the 6th Century and onward as I noted in another article.  However, according to Catholic Encyclopedia, his own bishop, the Patriarch/Pope of Alexandria--St Demetrius of Alexandria condemned him in a council that the Pope of Rome accepted:

In 230 Demetrius gave Origen a recommendation to take with him on his journey to Athens. But Origen was ordained priest at Caesarea without leave, and Demetrius with a synod of some bishops and a few priests condemned him to banishment, then from another synod sent a formal condemnation of him to all the churches. It is impossible to doubt that heresy, and not merely unauthorized ordination, must have been alleged by Demetrius for such a course. Rome accepted the decision, but Palestine, Phoenicia, Arabia, Achaia rejected it, and Origen retired to Caesarea, whence he sent forth letters in his own defence, and attacked Demetrius. The latter placed at the head of the Catechetical School the first pupil of Origen, Heraclas, who had long been his assistant. But the bishop died very soon, and Heraclas succeeding him, Origen returned to Alexandria. --Catholic Encyclopedia, St Demetrius

Someone reading the end might say "the bishop died and the next one accepted him! He died within the church!" However, the article on Bishop Heraclas says:

When in 231 the latter condemned Origen, who remained at Cæsarea, Heraclas became head of the school. Soon afterwards he succeeded Demetrius as bishop. According to Theophilus of Alexandria (in Gennadius, "De vir. ill.", xxxiv), when Origen returned to the city, Heraclas deposed him from the priesthood and banished him (cf. the life of St. Pachomius in Acta SS., 14 May, §21, and the probably spurious "Mystagogia" of St. Alexander of Alexandria, in Routh's "Reliquiæ Sacræ", IV, 81). This statement is supported by an interesting fragment of Photius (Synag. kaiapod.; 9), who probably had good authority. It runs as follows (Döllinger, "Hippol. und Kallist.", 264, Engl. transl. 245): "in the days of the most holy Heraclas, Origen, called Adamantius, was plainly expounding his own heresy on Wednesdays and Fridays; the said holy Heraclas therefore separated him from the Church and drove him from Alexandria, as a distorter of the wholesome doctrine and a perverter of the orthodox faith. Origen, thus excommunicated, on his way to Syria reached a city called Thmuis, which had an orthodox bishop named Ammonius, who committed to Origen the delivery of an instruction in his Church. The said Pope Heraclas, having heard this, went to Thmuis, deposed Ammonius for this cause, and set up in his stead as bishop a younger man named Philip, who was of great note among the Christians. --Chapman, J. (1910). Heraclas. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved September 19, 2019 from New Advent

Origen would outlive this bishop too and die under Dioynius, who after the death of Origen spoke highly of him, possibly believing he underwent torture for being a Christian.  According to Jules Lebreton:

Shortly after the condemnation of Origen, Demetrius died. His successor was the priest Heraclas, whom Origen had appointed as assistant, and who after his condemnation had taken his place at the head of the Catechetical School. It seems that Origen tried at this time to return to Alexandria and to take up his teaching once more, but Heraclas upheld the sentence of Demetrius. In 247 Heraclas died in his turn, and was succeeded by St. Dionysius. He, however, took no steps to recall to Alexandria the man who had nevertheless been his own master. But in the time of the Decian persecution, Origen was to receive, after his painful confession of the Faith, a friendly letter from the Bishop of Alexandria.

These facts enable us to understand better the significance and the motives of the sentence of Demetrius: if his two successors, sometime pupils of Origen, did nothing to recall their master to Alexandria, it must have been because his dismissal was motivated not merely by the personal jealousy of Demetrius, but also by the Church’s own interests.-- A History of the Early Church: The triumph of Christianity, page 44 by Jules Lebreton

If Origen was "rehabilitated" it was after he died. Furthermore, there is no indication Rome refused it's agreement of the condemnation of Origen that occurred under Patriarch Demetrius of Alexandria.

Bishop Barron's latest try at defending reasonable hope

This entry is in regards to Bishop Robert Barron's webpage on the issue of reasonable hope.

I have long been challenging Bishop Barron in comments over his vain speculation for the hope that all men will be saved.  (As a side note, as I mentioned elsewhere, in 2017, I had the opportunity to ask a member of the CDF whether von Balthasar/Bishop Barron's position is tenable for a Catholic. His reply was the doctrine is absurd and certainly will not reflect reality. He plainly told me there are at least 3 people he is certain are in Hell. He was concerned when I told him there is a bishop teaching this "reasonable hope".)

Bishop Barron disabled comments to his YouTube video where he insists the children of the church are able to hope "reasonably" that Hell will be empty of human beings (strange concept to defend in this age of suicide bombers, terrorism, rampant abortion, adultery, clerical sex abuse, euthanasia etc.)

I assert that, despite the insistence of people like Bishop Barron and other disciples of von Balthasar, the doctrine that there is a reasonable hope that all be saved is outside the limits of orthodoxy since its denied by Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 48) and Trent (Session VI, Chapter 3) and contradicts the plain reading of the Gospel (Matthew 7, Luke 13), in effect, making the words of Christ into false threats, making the Savior a liar.

There are many reasons the bishop could have disabled comments.

1) They were getting vile. There were numerous obnoxious, insulting comments against Bishop Barron, but this didn't stop him for years. Perhaps, it was getting to be too much.

2) He was tired of repeating himself. Also, possible, some thought he was overtly teaching universalism. Then, again, I've seen times where the Bishop misunderstood people as thinking the bishop believed all might be saved.  Regardless, it was done over and over.

3) He made many bad arguments. He made awful arguments in the comments, and even had to resort to suggesting the private revelation of Fatima might have been wrong. An opinion that is very unwise for any cleric to suggest. Lately, it seems he has reinterpreted the vision of Hell to just be a warning only, and does not necessarily reflect the actual state of Hell. Which would seem to make it a pious fraud, should no one really go to Hell. He made several other awful arguments that I will address later.

4) Some arguments he could not refute. I know I provided him with Trent and Vatican II on his idea of Hell. He dismissed Trent as stating a hypothetical--which it was not using hypothetical language at all. He simply did not respond to my argument from Vatican II which is even more direct against his position. 

Whatever the reason may be, Bishop Barron has created a special page on his website to explain/defend his position. Much of the page is dedicated to repeating his view is only speculation and that Hell is a dogma of faith, though he believes it might not really be for humans at all, thus disabling it as dogma. The page is full of half baked defenses for his position, even to the point where it borders on being dishonest, ignoring contrary evidence, selectively using quotes. Perhaps, this is why the page is written in the third person, so in case the statements contained therein are ruled heresy, the bishop can simply distance himself from his own webpage saying an employee wrote it.

The page states:

The purpose of this FAQ page is to provide a one-stop source for honest people looking for clarity on the issue. In particular, our intention is to clarify what Bishop Barron believes about hell, damnation, and salvation, and to confirm that his views are within the confines of orthodox Catholic teaching.

As I mentioned before, I personally informed a member of the CDF 2 years ago about Bishop Barron's position, which greatly concerned the bishop in the CDF, who said certainly Hell is populated. I could only hope that this encounter, of those of others had some effect. However, the bishop is still defending his position online, insisting its within orthodoxy, though never dealing with magisterial texts like the ones I posted. His treatment of Christ's text on the broad way to damnation require him to use John 12:32 to interpret Matthew 7:14.  

Since, Bishop Barron bases his position on a man that was likely an apostate, who nonetheless managed to be appointed a cardinal, and being struck dead just before his installation, he has to defend Hans Ur von Balthasar, and make no mention of Balthasar's even more serious heresies like his Arianistic view of the incarnation with the kenotic doctrine. On von Balthasar, the page states:

What about the negative things said about the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar? 

This is a valid question, but we must remember that every prominent thinker has critics. That includes St. Augustine, St. Thomas of Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena, G.K. Chesterton, John Henry Newman, and Pope Benedict XVI—and Jesus himself. But having critics does not make one a heretic—having heretical doctrine does. 

The important consideration is, are the critics correct in their critiques? 

Balthasar was a deep thinker and a speculative theologian in certain respects. He tested ideas to see if they could stand, in the long run, with the final authorities of Sacred Scripture and Church teaching; that’s what theologians do. But as R.R. Reno reaffirms about Balthasar:

John Paul II and Benedict XVI felt no reservations celebrating Balthasar’s intellectual contributions to the Church. Balthasar may have been wrong or one-sided when he was bold and unconventional, but he was not rejecting or undermining magisterial teaching.

Avery Cardinal Dulles affirmed the same thing about Balthasar’s position:

This [dare we hope] position of Balthasar seems to me to be orthodox. It does not contradict any ecumenical councils or definitions of the faith. It can be reconciled with everything in Scripture, at least if the statements of Jesus on hell are taken as minatory rather than predictive. Balthasar’s position, moreover, does not undermine a healthy fear of being lost.

The page makes no mention of von Balthasar's heretical views of Holy Saturday or the Kenotic doctrine, though if you read the links to FirstThings you can read about it, both having Protestant influence, the former being Calvinistic (via Balthasar's friend Karl Barth), the latter being more Arianistic and therefore seemingly apostate and was explicitly condemned by the Papacy of Pius XII. There is much more that can be said about these views.

As church history attests, several theologians were praised at one time and even thought to be within orthodoxy, only later to be anathematized. This was the case with the Origen (who Barron seems to conveniently omit was anathematized repeatedly), and Theodore of Mopsuestia (who was considered with in orthodoxy at the Council of Chalcedon, but anathematized by the Pope and Second Council of Constantinople in the Three Chapters controversy). That is to say, even if bishops or even popes said positive things about a theologian, or even explicitly defend him as orthodox as the Pope did once with Theodore of Mopsuestia, this can be corrected in the future. God willing, this will be done with von Balthasar.

Returning to the bishop's page's quotes.

First, R.R. Reno's:

John Paul II and Benedict XVI felt no reservations celebrating Balthasar’s intellectual contributions to the Church. Balthasar may have been wrong or one-sided when he was bold and unconventional, but he was not rejecting or undermining magisterial teaching.

However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church's section of the descent to hell was written explicitly to state the Church's teaching was not that of von Balthasar. As Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger  (later Pope Benedict XVI) and Christoph Schoenborn state in "Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church", cited by Lyra Pitstick:

 “The brief paragraph on Jesus’ descent into hell keeps to what is the common property of the Church’s exegetical tradition. Newer interpretations, such as that of Hans Urs von Balthasar (on the contemplation of Holy Saturday), however profound and helpful they may be, have not yet experienced that reception which would justify their inclusion in the Catechism.”--Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p 74-75

As I will go to at length later on, Pope John Paul II explicitly rejects von Balthasar's view of damnation in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

Pope Pius XII reject the doctrine of von Balthsar--the kenotic doctrine:

There is another enemy of the faith of Chalcedon, widely diffused outside the fold of the Catholic religion. This is an opinion for which a rashly and falsely understood sentence of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (ii, 7), supplies a basis and a shape. This is called the kenotic doctrine, and according to it, they imagine that the divinity was taken away from the Word in Christ. It is a wicked invention, equally to be condemned with the Docetism opposed to it. It reduces the whole mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption to empty the bloodless imaginations. 'With the entire and perfect nature of man'--thus grandly St. Leo the Great--'He Who was true God was born, complete in his own nature, complete in ours' (Ep. xxviii, 3. PL. Liv, 763. Cf. Serm. xxiii, 2. PL. lvi, 201).--Pope Pius XII, Sempiternus Rex Christus, Paragraph 29, September 8, 1951 (for more on this see Light in Darkness 

 Now for Cardinal Dulles' comment cited by the bishop's page:

This [dare we hope] position of Balthasar seems to me to be orthodox. It does not contradict any ecumenical councils or definitions of the faith. It can be reconciled with everything in Scripture, at least if the statements of Jesus on hell are taken as minatory rather than predictive. Balthasar’s position, moreover, does not undermine a healthy fear of being lost.

This is a partial citation, which does not even seem that confident that Balthasar is orthodox (eg "seems to me to be orthodox"). The Cardinal Dulles is wrong about not contradicting an ecumenical council, since a hypothetical Hell for humans contradicts lesser known sections of Trent and Vatican II. But, first let's see the rest of the citation by the Cardinal which continues as follows:

 But the position is at least adventurous. It runs against the obvious interpretation of the words of Jesus in the New Testament and against the dominant theological opinion down through the centuries, which maintains that some, and in fact very many, are lost. --Cardinal Dulles (emphasis mine)

Though the Cardinal did wrongly claim the position of holding to possibility an empty Hell is within orthodoxy, he admitted also, its a tough position to hold to and seems to contradict Christ Himself, and Catholic tradition. The position requires a lot of Bible twisting. The Cardinal, as with Barron, and most universalists historically, appealed to St Paul's writings, and largely downplayed Christ's--a concept that is contrary to Catholic tradition. As a side note, Cardinal Dulles was a Jesuit, an order that has had members doubting Hell, as was von Balthasar. Dulles himself was another high level Jesuit that accepted the red hat of a Cardinal (as did von Balthasar) despite the Jesuit Constitution's instructions that Jesuits are not to accept higher office. Balthasar at least refused to be made a bishop first, but accepting the appointment as a cardinal still is contrary to the Constitution's spirit.

Bishop Barron's use of Church Fathers

On this webpage, Bishop Barron, or at least one of his people, state:

What is also often overlooked, in light of these great saints and doctors in the Latin West, is the prominent speculations of the Eastern Church. The conviction that hell may be empty has been advocated by the likes of Origen of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor, and Isaac the Syrian.

This seems to be an admission that the western doctors and fathers rejected the concept of an empty Hell. So he resorts to Eastern early Christians. There are several problems with his citations. Despite insisting throughout his article and elsewhere that he is not a Origenist that believes Hell will be extinguished, and his repeated denial to certain knowledge that Hell will be empty of human---the bishop cites the very people he denies being. The statement "the conviction that hell may be empty..." is misleading since they did not believe Hell to be empty, but will be full of sinners, perhaps most of humanity, only to be emptied out at the end of the age.

Before addressing all of the Fathers, let me first say, his citation of St Maximus the Confessor requires evidence on the part of Bishop Barron. Likely, him, or his camp, are just repeating an opinion of von Balthasar concerning St Maximus, since there is no writing of his that people can point to that clearly teaches universalism, only opinions that it must "logically" do so. Von Balthasar debated Brian Daly as to whether St Maximus was a universalist. St Maximus' commentary on the Lord's prayer seems to clearly deny the concept of Hell being extinguished:

Indeed there exists but one happiness, a communion of life with the Word, the loss of which is an endless punishment which goes on for all eternity. And that is why abandoning his body and whatever is the body’s he strives intensely toward that communion of life with God, thinking that the only loss – even he were master of everything on earth – would be in the failure of the deification by grace which he pursues. --St Maximus the Confessor, Commentary on the Our Father

Von Balthasar, himself admits Maximus the Confessor did not clearly teach universalism but insists he believed it anyway:

"Maximus is not in favor of proclaiming a universal restoration in the straightforward way in which Gregory of Nyssa and even Origen himself did it, despite their assurances to the contrary. The history of Origenism was proof enough of the bad effects of such a lack of prudence....Beginners and the imperfect should not simply be guided by kindness and by glimpses of the depths of [God's] mercy; they need fear as well."--Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor, Hans Urs von Balthasar, page 357 translated by Brian Daley, SJ

Also, see Brian Daly's article. Clearly, St Maximus was not of the belief that Hell extinguished, I cannot for certain say yet if he believed necessarily there will be people in Hell.

The first on his list the Bishop's list is Origen, who is sometimes considered the author of universalism, though it likely pre-existed him. Origen was post-humously anathematized with his writings condemned by several ecumenical councils in the strongest of terms:

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.--Constantinople II (AD 553), Anathemas against the "Three Chapters", Canon XI 

We reject along with them Severus Peter and their interconnected band with their many blasphemies, in whose company we anathematize the mythical speculations of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, as did the fifth synod, that assembled at {5}Constantinople.==Nicaea II (AD 787), Definition 

we anathematize Severus, Peter and Zoharas the Syrian, as well as Origen with his useless knowledge, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Didymus along with Evagrius, who also, although of the same or different opinions, were ensnared in the same pit of damnation.--Constantinople IV (AD 869), Definition 

It also embraces, approves and accepts the fifth holy synod, the second of Constantinople, which was held in the time of our predecessor most blessed Vigilius and the emperor Justinian. In it the definition of the sacred council of Chalcedon about the two natures and the one person of Christ was renewed and many errors of Origen and his followers, especially about the penitence and liberation of demons and other condemned beings, were refuted and condemned.--Council of Florence, Session XI: Bull of union with the Copts, February 4, 1442

Needless to say, citing Origen does him no actual favors.Many of the Origenist/universalist made Gehenna a purgatory like the Jews have, though the Jews made avadon the eternal place of torment, however, the Jews believe some to be annihilated, the Origenists believe everyone will be saved, usually including the demons.

Bishop Barron lists St Gregory of Nyssa as being in his camp. Generally, it is agreed he is a universalist at least in some of his writings, however, as the International Theological Commission notes, he does not seem to believe an unbaptized infant will go to heaven, though he won't say the child will be in Hell either. When he did preach universalism, it seemed to be more along the lines of Origen, a doctrine Bishop Barron acknowledges as false. St Gregory of Nyssa is not a good example to be used by Bishop Barron.

Isaac the Syrian is cited by Bishop Barron's site, a man that probably was not Catholic, but likely outside the Church, despite him being considered a saint by the Chaldean Catholic Church. Using Isaac as an example is even worse than Origen in the sense that Isaac's doctrine would logically be doubly condemned. Isaac held in high regard the writings and doctrines of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Isaac the Syrian quoting Theodore of Mopseustia states:

From the blessed Theodore, the Interpreter. After other luminous statements he says:

“In the world to come, those who have chosen here what is good, will receive the felicity of good things along with praise; whereas the wicked, who all their life have turned aside to evil deeds, once they have been set in order in their minds by punishments and the fear of them, choose the good, having come to learn how much they have sinned, and that they have persevered in doing evil things and not good; by means of all this they receive a knowledge of religion’s excellent teaching, and are educated so as to hold on to it with a good will, (and so eventually) they are held worthy of the felicity of divine munificence. For (Christ) would never have said ‘Until you pay the last farthing’ unless it had been possible for us to be freed from our sins once we had recompensed for them through punishments. Nor would He have said ‘He will be beaten with many stripes’ and ‘He will be beaten with few stripes’ if it were not (the case) that the punishments, measured out in correspondence to the sins, were finally going to have an end”.--Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian), 'The Second Part, Chapters XXXIX:8, page 166-167. translated by Sebastian Brock

Isaac quotes Theodore of Mopsuestia in his pro-Pelagian writing Against those who say that sin is ingrained by nature (CPG 3860) who in addition to believe in the Pelagian heresy, was anathematized by ecumenical council and called a blasphemer (Constantinople II [AD 553] The Sentences of the Synod). Ironically, despite Theodore and likely Isaac the Syrian being Pelagians, Pelagius himself rejected Origenism, as is clear in St Augustine's account of Pelagius appearing before a tribunal of eastern bishops.Theodore of Mopsuestia was hostile to some Origenist ideas, but not totally with apokatastasis. Yet, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isaac the Syrian were both sympathetic to Origen;s idea of a Hell burning out and Pelagianism.

The theology of a hope for an empty Hell is incompatible with Bishop Barron's view since Isaac and Theodore's Hell is emptied at the end of time a view that was anathematized by the Pope and Patriarchs in Justinian's time, and reaffirmed by later councils and the current Catechism. It is interesting the bishop wishes to cite sources that simply do not work, obviously the Bishop would object to the salvation of the devil!

And it is clear that He does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, He is going to bring them to a single equal state of completion in relationship to His own Being in a state in which the holy angels are now, in perfection of love and a passionless mind--Isaac the Syrian, The Second Part, Chapter 40:4, translated by Sebastian Brock

Suffice it to say, Bishop Barron really ought not to have cited Isaac the Syrian (for many reasons).

St Edith Stein

Barron's page cites St Edith Stein in this Q&A:

How was Hans Urs von Balthasar’s view on hell different than Bishop Barron’s?

In his book, Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?, Balthasar cites with approval these words from St. Edith Stein:

All merciful love can thus descend to everyone. We believe that it does so. And now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can become infinitely improbable—precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul.

Bishop Barron would not go so far as to say it is “infinitely improbable” there are people in hell. That language is too strong. But he does agree with Balthasar’s main thesis, affirmed by the Catechism, that we can pray, and hope hell is empty of people.

s pointed out in this blog. This is a very convenient copy and paste, considering the Saint did not publish this and furthermore revised her wording:

Schenk, “Factical Damnation,” p. 150, n. 35, points out that while Balthasar makes this his final position, it was not the final position of Edith Stein herself. Schenk points out that these were passing comments in a work that she herself never published, and that in 1939 in her spiritual testament, she significantly modifies. “The possibility of some final loss appears more real and pressing than one which would seem infinitely improbable.” Hauke, “Sperare per tutti?” pp. 207-8, makes the same point as well as the additional point that not everything a saint or Doctor wrote is honored when they are recognized as saints or Doctors.--From the Musings of a Pertinacious Papist blog

Continuing on, another Q&A reads:

So does Bishop Barron think hell is empty, or that all people will be saved?

No. Again, Bishop Barron’s position is one of hope—not of thought, certainty, expectation, or even probability. While hoping and praying for hell to be empty of men, he does not know whether hell is empty, think hell is empty, or expect hell to be empty.

Bishop Barron simply agrees with Pope Benedict XVI’s position: 

It seems to me that Pope Benedict’s position—affirming the reality of hell but seriously questioning whether that the vast majority of human beings end up there—is the most tenable and actually the most evangelically promising.

He also agrees with Pope John Paul II, who in a 1999 statement in the L’Osservatore Romano said:

Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.

Note the inclusion of the word “whether,” which confirms Pope John Paul II considered the possibility that hell might be empty. When the statement was included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the word “whether” was removed by editors, but its original inclusion affirms that Pope John Paul II held this outcome to be a real possibility.

Bishop Barron's second quote is a staple in Balthasarian sympathizers circles. To the bishop's credit, he actually admits the text was corrected to remove the impression that universal salvation is possible, something many in his camp conveniently omit. This was actually an audience Pope John Paul II delivered, the text initially on the Vatican site in English and Italian include the word "whether" but the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" omitted it. Perhaps, the Pope did not intend it, or misspoke. As far as the edit, for all we know the Pope himself, or the head of the CDF at the time Cardinal Ratzinger was the one to have it excluded!  Furthermore, Pope John Paul II did not believe in the possibility of an empty Hell and explicitly called out people like Origen and von Balthasar in his Papal Encyclical, Crossing the Threshold of Hope:

"The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Sergey Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the "final apocatastasis," according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Mt 26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.).”—Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Chapter 28: Does Eternal Life Exist? c.AD 1994 (emphasis mine)

In this Pope John Paul II left no room for von Balthasar's "hope," despite wanting to make him a Cardinal. Critics think appointing him to a Cardinal is necessarily approval of all his theology, however, the Pope appointed many problematic prelates. Regardless, Pope John Paul II in alluding to Matthew 25 has what Lumen Gentium had in mind when using the grammatical future to describe damnation.

The Pope Benedict XVI quote they provide doesn't even mention the idea that maybe no one will be damned. In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger, as I showed Bishop Barron before stated:

“This is why God’s all-embracing desire to save people does not involve the actual salvation of all men.  He allows us the power to refuse.”— Joseph Alois Cardinal Ratzinger, “Gott ist uns nah. Eucharistie: Mitt des Lebens” (God is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life), Chapter II: God’s Yes and His Love Are Maintained Even in Death, point 2, p. 37 (concerning pro multis in the Mass.) Published June 1, AD 2003

Bishop Barron's page gives a list of scripture that are believed to suggest universalism, or as he tries to downplay it as "hope" for it.

What biblical evidence is there that all people might be saved?

Some examples of “salvation of all” texts include:

“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)

“He has made known to us the mystery of his will . . . as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Eph. 1:9-10)

“This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:3-4)

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22).

“For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” (Col. 1:19-20).

“Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” (Rom. 5:18-19).

“For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.” (Rom. 11:32).

Some of these passages like John 12:32 do not even suggest universal salvation, but merely God's desire to save all men, not that it will come to pass, since that would contradict other scripture. St John Chrysostom on this passage comments that Christ says "all men" to emphasis that He draws the gentiles not just the Jews, since the passage starts of mentioning the Greeks present. The rest of the passages, as it generally the case with universalists--almost exclusively quote Paul, since the doctrine cannot honestly be read in the gospels unless an attempt at apokastasis is made.

In regards to 1 Corinthians 15:22 we see St John Chrysostom state:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 

What then? Tell me; did all die in Adam the death of sin ? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? And how Abraham? And how Job? And how all the rest? And what, I pray? Shall all be made alive in Christ? Where then are those who are led away into hell fire? Thus, if this be said of the body, the doctrine stands: but if of righteousness and sin, it does so no longer. 

Further, lest, on hearing that the making alive is common to all, you should also suppose that sinners are saved, he adds, 

"But every man in his own order." 

For do not, because you hear of a resurrection, imagine that all enjoy the same benefits. Since if in the punishment all will not suffer alike but the difference is great; much more where there are sinners and righteous men shall the separation be yet wider. 

"Christ the first-fruits, then they that are Christ's;" i.e., the faithful and the approved.--St John Chrysostom, Homily 39 on First Corinthians,

If read in isolation these passage would even seem to plainly say all men will be saved, and give the impression there is 0 chance of it not happening.

1 Timothy 2:4 only speaks of God's desire, that is He does not desire men to be damned. Though not dogmatic, a local council mentioned in Denzinger, the council explicitly cited this verse as not saying all will be saved. As we see:

"Omnipotent God wishes all men without exception to be saved [1 Tim. 2:4] although not all will be saved. However, that certain ones are saved, is the gift of the one who saves; that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish."—Council of Quiersy chapter 3, AD 853, (Denz. 318) 

2 Peter 3:15-18 issued a warning about this very matter of using Paul for false teaching. Considering 2 Peter is an epistle of fire and brimstone, and end times, these things were likely in mind when warning people to read St Paul carefully.

Furthermore, what should be noted more is that this is the same reading of "all" in the Romans' verses that Protestants latch on to in order to declare Mary a sinner.

Barron's page makes several shocking claims about von Balthasar that they think are worth quoting, but the Bishop does not come out and say this is his position too, but will use von Balthasar to defend the absurd position, nonetheless.

Considering the bishop's team cited firstthings as a source, it is my reasonable hope that he reads Lyra Pitstick's critiques of von Balthasar's doctrines, like Christ's Descent into Hell. See here website at http://lyrapitstick.com/ One might also refer to Ralph Martin's book.



To be continued....


Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4