Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Der Alte]

Understanding ancient Orthodox theology and tradition goes much deeper and further than what a Protestant is going to find in just reading the EOB.

Prove it amigo. Quote me some official writings of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. I think I can safely say that you will not find any official writing which contradicts anything I have said about EO.

 

[Fervent]

Because it's the truth, as evinced by EO theologian David Bentley Hart:

"Orthodoxy’s entire dogmatic deposit resides in the canons of the seven ecumenical councils—everything else in Orthodox tradition, be it ever so venerable, beautiful, or spiritually nourishing, can possess at most the authority of accepted custom, licit conjecture, or fruitful practice—and the consensus of the most conscientious and historically literate Orthodox theologians and scholars over the past several decades (Evdokimov, Bulgakov, Clément, Turincev, Ware, Alfeyev, to name a few) is that universalism as such, as a permissible theologoumenon or plausible hope, has never been condemned by the Church. Doctrine is silent on the matter.”

Full article here Saint Origen | David Bentley Hart



Why doesn't that surprise me?

Except, of course, for the second ecumenical council at Constantinople. The anathema against Origen is definitely of the council and the 15 additional anathema's are legitamate whether they were produced by the council itself or a synod.

 

[Der Alte]

Except, of course, for the second ecumenical council at Constantinople. The anathema against Origen is definitely of the council and the 15 additional anathema's are legitamate whether they were produced by the council itself or a synod.

Ooops. I think he was hoping you didn't know about them.

 

[public hermit]

Longest thread, ever. Still, no answer.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Longest thread, ever. Still, no answer.

The hard way: argue back and forth, with no resolution.

The easy way: use a Bible from the list that has been presented in this very thread, one that does not contain the word "hell."

What's not to like?

 

[Hmm]

The easy way: use a Bible from the list that has been presented in this very thread, one that does not contain the word "hell."

It's quite a sad What If to ask how many more people would be Christian today if the mistranlations "hell" (Hades, Gehenna etc), "eternal" (aiõnios) and "punishment" (kolasis) never made it into the English Bibles. Quite a few I'd guess because we're probably all looking for a God who's like the prodigal's father rather than a tormenting/torturing God. What's not to like?

 

[Andrewn]

 

[Saint Steven]

Longest thread, ever. Still, no answer.

That says a lot. (in very few words) Thanks.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's quite a sad What If to ask how many more people would be Christian today if the mistranlations "hell" (Hades, Gehenna etc), "eternal" (aiõnios) and "punishment" (kolasis) never made it into the English Bibles. Quite a few I'd guess because we're probably all looking for a God who's like the prodigal's father rather than a tormenting/torturing God. What's not to like?

That's an interesting question.
I think ECT is so bizarre, I can't imagine anyone having the idea out of thin air.
On the other hand, that is pretty much what happened with the biased translation work.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's quite a sad What If to ask how many more people would be Christian today if the mistranlations "hell" (Hades, Gehenna etc), "eternal" (aiõnios) and "punishment" (kolasis) never made it into the English Bibles. Quite a few I'd guess because we're probably all looking for a God who's like the prodigal's father rather than a tormenting/torturing God. What's not to like?

We did have a thread a while back, I think @MMXX was the originator, it asked the question: "If there was no afterlife, would you still be a Christian?" (from memory)

I was SHOCKED at the responses. The vast majority said, "No!"

 

[hedrick]

That's an interesting question.
I think ECT is so bizarre, I can't imagine anyone having the idea out of thin air.
On the other hand, that is pretty much what happened with the biased translation work.

That’s not entirely fair. The word Gehenna does appear, though normally in contexts involving hyperbole or hypotheticals. Just what its implications are is not clear because ideas varied. But it was often, maybe even normally, considered to be eternal. It’s just that people weren’t necessarily thought to stay there eternally. From the citations I’ve seen of the Talmud, it looks like views about it got harsher over time among Jews. Probably the same happened among Christians. Why? I don’t know, but I suspect religious conflict and persecution might be involved. It’s easy to think your enemies deserve to have bad things happen to them. It’s not an impulse Jesus approved of, but it’s easy to understand.

My best source is "Hell and its Rivals" by Alan Bernstein. He makes a case that Christian developments were part of a general development in ideas about the afterlife, occurring throughout the region in all religions. Much of the development had already occurred by the 1st Cent, but it continued.

 

[hedrick]

We did have a thread a while back, I think @MMXX was the originator, it asked the question: "If there was no afterlife, would you still be a Christian?" (from memory)

I was SHOCKED at the responses. The vast majority said, "No!"

I agree. You've got to wonder whether the people saying no actually love God or are just afraid of what they think he is. Does that qualify as saving faith?

 

[Saint Steven]

That’s not entirely fair. The word Gehenna does appear, though normally in contexts involving hyperbole or hypotheticals. Just what its implications are is not clear because ideas varied. But it was often, maybe even normally, considered to be eternal. It’s just that people weren’t necessarily thought to stay there eternally. From the citations I’ve seen of the Talmud, it looks like views about it got harsher over time among Jews. Probably the same happened among Christians. Why? I don’t know, but I suspect religious conflict and persecution might be involved. It’s easy to think your enemies deserve to have bad things happen to them. It’s not an impulse Jesus approved of, but it’s easy to understand.

My best source is "Hell and its Rivals" by Alan Bernstein. He makes a case that Christian developments were part of a general development in ideas about the afterlife, occurring throughout the region in all religions. Much of the development had already occurred by the 1st Cent, but it continued.

Thanks. Those are some good points.
However, they illustrate how religious culture, much of it pagan, influenced the canon translation work. And the Bible we have today is a direct result.

And this is why we have three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR)

 

[Saint Steven]

I agree. You've got to wonder whether the people saying no actually love God or are just afraid of what they think he is. Does that qualify as saving faith?

YES!
It raises questions about motivation and process.
Were they only motivated by fear? (viewing God as a cosmic tyrant)
And could that fear actually be the wooing of the Holy Spirit? (I doubt it)
Where does that leave them?

Jesus said it best when addressing the religious folks of his day.

Matthew 21:31 NRSV
Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks. Those are some good points.
However, they illustrate how religious culture, much of it pagan, influenced the canon translation work. And the Bible we have today is a direct result.

And this is why we have three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR)

I'm not convinced that translating Gehenna as hell is an error. People's ideas about hell have been influenced by later developments. They may read that into the NT. But that's true of just about every major concept in the NT. It's probably still the closest translation.

Furthermore, I think Matthew quite likely has already been influenced by those developments. I'm not so sure that reading Dante into Matthew is all that misleading.

NRSV uses hell to translate gehenna. To make sure people realize there's a distinction, it translates hades as hades. (In the 1st Cent Hades was often considered temporary.)

 

[ozso]

We did have a thread a while back, I think @MMXX was the originator, it asked the question: "If there was no afterlife, would you still be a Christian?" (from memory)

I was SHOCKED at the responses. The vast majority said, "No!"

Yep. And there was also another similar thread that got similar responses. And again, from what I've learned about it and from them, it seems like that would be an unlikely response from an Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm not convinced that translating Gehenna as hell is an error. People's ideas about hell have been influenced by later developments. They may read that into the NT. But that's true of just about every major concept in the NT. It's probably still the closest translation.

I think it created a mess.
We were left with three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
The absolute worst of the three being the dominant view.

And the result is what we discovered on the aforementioned topic, Christians that would NOT even be Christians if not for the threat of ECT. They obviously see no value in a relationship with God in the here and now. Only the afterlife benefit. So sad.

Saint Steven said: ↑
And this is why we have three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR)

 

[Saint Steven]

I think it created a mess.
We were left with three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
The absolute worst of the three being the dominant view.

And the result is what we discovered on the aforementioned topic, Christians that would NOT even be Christians if not for the threat of ECT. They obviously see no value in a relationship with God in the here and now. Only the afterlife benefit. So sad.

Saint Steven said: ↑
And this is why we have three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR)

I can see why those who believe in ECT would be opposed to UR. Without the threat of ECT, they wouldn't even be "Christians". From their perspective, no one would respond if the threat was removed.

Unfortunately, this boils down to spiritual extortion. Thus turning our loving heavenly Father into something more like a gangster godfather, making us an offer we can't refuse. Hell to pay otherwise.

 

[Hmm]

We were left with three conflicting biblical doctrines of the final judgment

It's a hell of a mess. To me, the EO church has the most clarity on it and their reverence for the universalist Gregory of Nyssa, the "father of fathers, no doubt plays an important part in that; then the Catholic church with its hopeful universalism, and very much least and last the Protestant tradition with its total confusion and ever changing position (from Torture to Torment to Separation to try to make it more PC) on the issue.

 

[hedrick]

We have three conflicting views because Scripture doesn't give a clear answer. The closest to a real description of judgement are 1 Cor 15 and the Rev. But commentators generally claim 1 Cor 15 is really only about the fate of Christians, and can't be used as the basis of a complete idea, and the Rev is sufficiently symbolic that nobody sane bases doctrine on it. Does the pit self-destruct, or is it lying alongside the new Jerusalem?

It might be interesting to consider why Scripture might not give us an answer.