Why I like David Bentley Hart

[ArmyMatt]

My view of Justinian actually has nothing to do with universalism. I am not a universalist. Universalism, as taught by certain Anabaptists, is actually rejected in our confessions.

I believe apoctasis is biblical, to a certain extent, but how it reconciles with other established truths is not something I believe that can be easily reconciled.

I agree with Hart that Origen is often treated unfairly by many Orthodox churchmen. Alot of his ideas are heretical only retrospectively. At the time he lived, orthodoxy was far more fluid. As St. Gregory's theological speculations show, material heresy is not necessarily a crime and it does not render someone outside the fold.

Nyssa didn't speculate and was never in error. Fathers have affirmed his understanding while rejecting Origen's. plus, Origen was condemned in his lifetime by St Demitrius of Alexandria as well as very vocally by St Epiphanios of Salamis, both long before St Justinian.

articulation was always flexible, but Orthodoxy never is.

 

[ClementofA]

except that the idea of damnation is that the damned are healed, but have eternally set their will against the healing, which becomes their torment.

so, you're not actually refuting our position.

"Scholars generally agree on two points regarding Gregory of Nyssa’s eschatology: That he believed in universal reconciliation, and that the salvation of all rational beings eventually will include Satan himself. Such beliefs, far from making Gregory a notorious figure, have largely gone unnoticed outside of academia. Further, even among those for whom Gregory’s universalism is a given, his contention that even Satan will be saved often is treated as an afterthought."

"Yet Gregory seemed to think the salvation of Satan was quite important."

To Heaven with the Devil: The Importance of Satan's Salvation for God's Goodness in the Works of Gregory of Nyssa | Anthony | Conversations: A Graduate Student Journal of the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Theology

Can a position based on blind faith (& constantly regurgitating the party line) be refuted?

 

[ArmyMatt]

"Scholars generally agree on two points regarding Gregory of Nyssa’s eschatology: That he believed in universal reconciliation, and that the salvation of all rational beings eventually will include Satan himself. Such beliefs, far from making Gregory a notorious figure, have largely gone unnoticed outside of academia. Further, even among those for whom Gregory’s universalism is a given, his contention that even Satan will be saved often is treated as an afterthought."

"Yet Gregory seemed to think the salvation of Satan was quite important."

To Heaven with the Devil: The Importance of Satan's Salvation for God's Goodness in the Works of Gregory of Nyssa | Anthony | Conversations: A Graduate Student Journal of the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Theology

Can a position based on blind faith (& constantly regurgitating the party line) be refuted?

and again, for the umpteenth time, St Maximos clarifies universal reconciliation of Nyssa.

 

[~Anastasia~]

To Heaven with the Devil: The Importance of Satan's Salvation for God's Goodness in the Works of Gregory of Nyssa | Anthony | Conversations: A Graduate Student Journal of the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Theology

Can a position based on blind faith (& constantly regurgitating the party line) be refuted?

Can a graduate student centuries later know more about the Saints and the faith than the Church and the Saints themselves know it?

Forgive me, but I'm thankful that the teachings of Orthodoxy do not turn on the opinions derived in such a way, centuries later. There would be no constancy or anything to trust. Let all the denominations out there have that if that's what they wish. There's plenty of it to go around. Let it never be that the Orthodox Church succumbs to such.

And if you've never heard of St. Maximos the Confessor, may I gently suggest that reading him would prove far more edifying than graduate student's or even scholarly works about the Saints. Get to know them for yourself and you will be blessed.

 

[ClementofA]

Can a graduate student centuries later know more about the Saints and the faith than the Church and the Saints themselves know it?

Can you post "the Church" evidence on this subject? Then i can decide for myself if the evidence favors "the Church" opinions or assumptions (or lies) or what the vast majority of "scholars" say on the subject. Just regurgitating "the Church says, that settles it" will convince no one with an open mind to the Lord Jesus Christ & the Holy Spirit of Truth:

""Scholars generally agree on two points regarding Gregory of Nyssa’s eschatology: That he believed in universal reconciliation, and that the salvation of all rational beings eventually will include Satan himself. Such beliefs, far from making Gregory a notorious figure, have largely gone unnoticed outside of academia. Further, even among those for whom Gregory’s universalism is a given, his contention that even Satan will be saved often is treated as an afterthought."

"Yet Gregory seemed to think the salvation of Satan was quite important."

 

[ArmyMatt]

Can you post "the Church" evidence on this subject? Then i can decide for myself if the evidence favors "the Church" opinions or assumptions (or lies) or what the vast majority of "scholars" say on the subject. Just regurgitating "the Church says, that settles it" will convince no one with an open mind to the Lord Jesus Christ & the Holy Spirit of Truth:

""Scholars generally agree on two points regarding Gregory of Nyssa’s eschatology: That he believed in universal reconciliation, and that the salvation of all rational beings eventually will include Satan himself. Such beliefs, far from making Gregory a notorious figure, have largely gone unnoticed outside of academia. Further, even among those for whom Gregory’s universalism is a given, his contention that even Satan will be saved often is treated as an afterthought."

"Yet Gregory seemed to think the salvation of Satan was quite important."

Church evidence are the canons and extracts of the Ecumenical Councils, which have been posted. in glancing through Nyssa's writings (NPNF vol 5), he certainly hopes that all will return, however, he also says that only those parted with evil will unite with Him, and God becomes a haven for those who deserve it.

so evil will be annihilated, and all will be restored, but that is not a picnic for those who hate it.

 

[ClementofA]

Church evidence are the canons and extracts of the Ecumenical Councils, which have been posted. in glancing through Nyssa's writings (NPNF vol 5), he certainly hopes that all will return, however, he also says that only those parted with evil will unite with Him, and God becomes a haven for those who deserve it.

so evil will be annihilated, and all will be restored, but that is not a picnic for those who hate it.

Posted? Where?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Posted? Where?

top of page 5

 

[ClementofA]

I trust the Church’s interpretation of his actions rather than DBH, who has an agenda in reinterpreting St Justinian (in order to portray Origen, the heretic, favourably and ultimately, justify universalism).

Likewise "trust the Church" could be considered an agenda.

There are 100's of Christian "churches" (i.e. denominations, divisions, sects) with their members all saying the same thing..."I trust the Church" [of my choice/opinion]. And often condemning each other to "hell".

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Likewise "trust the Church" could be considered an agenda.

There are 100's of Christian "churches" (i.e. denominations, divisions, sects) with their members all saying the same thing..."I trust the Church" [of my choice/opinion]. And often condemning each other to "hell".

Actually, I don’t think that is the case, at least for Evangelicals. When I was one, I certainly didn’t trust my church. Rather, I trusted that my understanding of Scripture and then looked for a church that matched that understanding.

And during the time of St. Justinian, there were not hundreds of churches. There was the Church and then there were heresies, which the Ecumenical councils addressed.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Likewise "trust the Church" could be considered an agenda.

There are 100's of Christian "churches" (i.e. denominations, divisions, sects) with their members all saying the same thing..."I trust the Church" [of my choice/opinion]. And often condemning each other to "hell".

since this is the Orthodox forum, it makes sense that we adhere to what the Orthodox Church says.

and there are over 20,000 denominations yes, but there is only one Church. that is what Scripture and Christian history show. a lot of groups that are Christian, but only one Church.

 

[ClementofA]

since this is the Orthodox forum, it makes sense that we adhere to what the Orthodox Church says.

and there are over 20,000 denominations yes, but there is only one Church. that is what Scripture and Christian history show. a lot of groups that are Christian, but only one Church.

The one Church is the body of believers in all groups, whether they are called the RCC, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc. Is this what you believe?

 

[ClementofA]

And during the time of St. Justinian, there were not hundreds of churches. There was the Church and then there were heresies, which the Ecumenical councils addressed.

Even in the time of Paul there were denominations. See the first epistle to the Corinthians.

 

[ClementofA]

since this is the Orthodox forum, it makes sense that we adhere to what the Orthodox Church says.

Like David B. Hart?:

"Dear me, you really think those are interpolations? That is something of a joke in scholarly circles. Especially since it would basically mean that Gregory’s whole theology, from the ground up, as unfolded in De anima et resurrectione and De hominis opificio and the Great Oration and the Psalms commentary is an interpolation. Maybe Gregory never really wrote anything (rather like the Oxfordian hyposthesis about Shakespeare). Something similar is true in Isaac’s case. And those two are far from being the only patristic universalists; both of the very distinct Alexandrian (including Cappadocian) and Antiochene tradition are full of them, from the days of Pantaenus to the 13th century writings of Solomon of Bostra. Goodness, there are almost overwhelming reasons to believe Gregory Nazianzen, and even Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, were so disposed (Gregory unquestionably, really)."

"...As it happens, I number among my friends and acquaintances some of the greatest scholars of Orthodox canons and councils and history in the world; and to a man they would assert that the Orthodox Church–no matter what the inclinations of its catechists and prelates may have been down the ages–has never definitively condemned universalism as such, or even addressed it under any synodical or conciliar conditions of special import. It has condemned some teachings that are also, as it happens, universalist. But the sort of universalism found in Gregory and Isaac, which fully acknowledges the reality of judgment and hell, has never even been addressed."

Readings in Universalism

As regards Maximus:

"Some other universalist voices: St. Silouan the Athonite and (according to Fr. Cyril Hovorun and Balthasar) probably Maximus the Confessor."

Readings in Universalism

 

[prodromos]

The one Church is the body of believers in all groups, whether they are called the RCC, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc. Is this what you believe?

No, that is not what we believe.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The one Church is the body of believers in all groups, whether they are called the RCC, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc. Is this what you believe?

no. the Church is the single body of believers who have maintained the faith from Pentecost.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Like David B. Hart?:

"Dear me, you really think those are interpolations? That is something of a joke in scholarly circles. Especially since it would basically mean that Gregory’s whole theology, from the ground up, as unfolded in De anima et resurrectione and De hominis opificio and the Great Oration and the Psalms commentary is an interpolation. Maybe Gregory never really wrote anything (rather like the Oxfordian hyposthesis about Shakespeare). Something similar is true in Isaac’s case. And those two are far from being the only patristic universalists; both of the very distinct Alexandrian (including Cappadocian) and Antiochene tradition are full of them, from the days of Pantaenus to the 13th century writings of Solomon of Bostra. Goodness, there are almost overwhelming reasons to believe Gregory Nazianzen, and even Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, were so disposed (Gregory unquestionably, really)."

"...As it happens, I number among my friends and acquaintances some of the greatest scholars of Orthodox canons and councils and history in the world; and to a man they would assert that the Orthodox Church–no matter what the inclinations of its catechists and prelates may have been down the ages–has never definitively condemned universalism as such, or even addressed it under any synodical or conciliar conditions of special import. It has condemned some teachings that are also, as it happens, universalist. But the sort of universalism found in Gregory and Isaac, which fully acknowledges the reality of judgment and hell, has never even been addressed."

Readings in Universalism

As regards Maximus:

"Some other universalist voices: St. Silouan the Athonite and (according to Fr. Cyril Hovorun and Balthasar) probably Maximus the Confessor."

Readings in Universalism

that's the problem with Hart, he ignores the Patristics that disagree with him, to include the highest authority in the Ecumenical Councils.

and I referenced Nyssa from Nyssa not saying universalism in an Origenist way. St Isaac does the same thing when he calls hell the eternal scourge of God's love.

please, finding blog entries which speak of universal reconciliation does not argue for your point. the universal restoration in Nyssa and Maximos we agree with because it is not the same as that of Origen.

and the author of that blog is also very selective of the quotes he used.

so, no, not like Hart.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Forgive me, but this thread is a perfect example of how maintaining the faith steadfastly can provide stability in the face of various voices clamoring for different interpretations. It is no surprise that there are winds that push in this direction or that, as they have existed from the beginning, and have only proliferated over the ages.

Thank God we do have the body of wisdom in the writings of the early Church fathers.

I have some sympathy, because in the beginning I found voices that would say virtually anything, as I gave always encountered in Protestantism, and was at a loss to figure out which ones might be true. It takes effort, but it IS certainly possible to learn with evidence what the Christian faith has always taught.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Even in the time of Paul there were denominations. See the first epistle to the Corinthians.

Not in the modern sense. There was one Church and it met at the first Council in Jerusalem to ensure unity of doctrine. This is the Biblical model. See 15 Acts.

Protestant denominations today don’t function this way amongst themselves. Their response to modern controversies (akin to the circumcision controversy in Acts 15) is typically to split and form a new church. This modern Protestant actitude to unity contrasts dramatically to that found in the early Church.

As one of the early Christian writers St Irenaeus wrote:

“...the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.”Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 1 (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

The “unity” of the modern “invisible church” is nothing like the true unity of the Apostolic Church, which continues today in the Orthodox Church.

 

[ClementofA]

no. the Church is the single body of believers who have maintained the faith from Pentecost.

Here's a biblical definition:

Eph.1:22 And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Who does He fill? Only those in the EO division? No, all believers, i.e. saints.

Note that there is no mention of "maintaining the faith" there, whatever you mean by that.