- Sep 27, 2019
- 4,866
- 5,027
- 35
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Universalism had some following too, but it was never the norm
We probably don't know for sure what the norm was in the early church but Augustine himself, a clear non-Universalist, said that universalism was once a popular doctrine so it had rather more support than just "some following". He says that there were "indeed very many" universalists in the early church, and also that they are not going counter to scripture:
It is quite in vain, then, that some–indeed very many–yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture—but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express literal truth.
— Augustine, Enchiridion, sec. 112.
and was rejected by the Church just like all the other aberrant theories.
I presume you are referring to the Fifth Ecumenical Council and, if so, the question of what was anathematised at the council is disputed. F. Nutcombe Oxenham, the 19th century Roman Catholic theologian and historian for example:
Let me say to any who may consider it an important matter to be assured whether Origen was, or was not condemned, by some ancient Synod, two things—(1) That if it could be ever so conclusively proved that “Origen was condemned” by the Fifth Council, this would afford no evidence whatever that he was condemned on account of his doctrine of restitution, since he held a great many other doctrines much more open to blame than this one. And then (2) Supposing Origen’s doctrine of restitution had been “by itself condemned,” this would be no condemnation of the doctrine of restitution, as now held.
Another example, when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation:
Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.
Last edited:
Upvote
0