Could I ask a question please?

[Minty]

Hello members of TAW

I was wondering if I could possibly ask you all a question, please?

I have been reading about Christianity alot recently, and I have been also reading about Christian Universalism, and it was whilst reading about the latter that the Orthodox Church popped up.

My question is...is it true that the Orthodox Church believe in the concept of universal reconcilliation and this is the reason that it will not be re-united with Rome as they don't believe it? Do you all believe that ALL will enter heaven eventually?

Sorry if this seems to be a strange question, but I am really interested to see if this is the case, and I thought that rather than ask others that I would cut out the middle man and ask you all directly

I hope that you don't mind my asking, and I do hope that my question hasn't offended you in any way...if it has, I am truly sorry, as that was never my intention

 

[Protoevangel]

Hi Minty,

No. Universal Reconciliation is condemned.

I have the text of the anathema somewhere. I can post it later, unless someone else does first.

 

[gzt]

There are some who believe that eventually all may be saved. It is not a dogma of the Orthodox Church that it is so, but it is not heretical to hope for the universal reconciliation. The sticking point is not God's willingness to save, for God does not desire the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his way and live. Some Orthodox theologians teach that heaven and hell are objectively the same, the difference is our subjective appropriation of them. They are both the perception of the infinite love of God. Recall the Old Testament where it says that no man may see God and live and the prophets who were in the presence of God and had to avert their eyes or desired to flee because they were sinful men. Or how Adam and Eve were ashamed to show themselves to God because they had sinned. If you hate God and choose to hate God and rebel against Him to the end, can God force you to change your mind and enjoy love? Some have said Hell is the horror of not being able to love. Maybe one would eventually learn to love. Who knows? But God can't just override your choice without doing violence to what makes you YOU.

This has nothing to do with the reasons for the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[Protoevangel]

I found it.

"If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασι&#962 will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema."
- The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen.
(Part and parcel of the The Fifth Ecumenical Council).
​

People can speculate about the unending mercy of God all they want. They cannot teach apokastasis (universal reconciliation) as a doctrine.

 

[Khaleas]

Hi Minty! *waves*

Looks like CF is having issues again, the replies in this thread are all out of order...

 

[Minty]

Hi Minty! *waves*

Looks like CF is having issues again, the replies in this thread are all out of order...

Yeah...so I see gzt sure is clever to have answered my question approx 7 1/2 hours before I asked it

Anyway...thanks for the answers everyone, and I do hope that I didn't offend?

 

[Protoevangel]

Yeah...so I see gzt sure is clever to have answered my question approx 7 1/2 hours before I asked it

Anyway...thanks for the answers everyone, and I do hope that I didn't offend?

Offend? Don't be silly.

 

[Grigorii]

"My question is...is it true that the Orthodox Church believe in the concept of universal reconcilliation and this is the reason that it will not be re-united with Rome as they don't believe it? Do you all believe that ALL will enter heaven eventually?"

First a little clarification if I may (forgive me if it may seem redundant): Universal reconciliation is not about entering "Heaven" but about all being restored to the Father in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit in the bodily resurrection. "Heaven" if it is meant to refer to "where" the soul goes after death is only temporary for the ultimate goal of human life is always embodied.

To answer your question: Orthodox Christians may believe that all will be restored to the Father as specified by me above, they generally do not though. I am among those that do believe it. A minority of saints and theologians are with me on this, but a vast majority of saints and theologians seems to be opposed to it in varying degrees.

There is no official dogmatic position that is required of an Orthodox Christian in this regard. Yet often the Fifth Ecumenical Council is brought up because some still attribute one or two series of anathema (condemnations) to that council which condemn 6-th century Origenism. Recent scholarship - both Catholic and Orthodox - tend to separate the anathemas from this council. The first set of 9 anathemas belong to a local council gathered ten years before the Ecumenical Synod of 553 and the second set of 15 anathemas are dated to shortly before the opening of the Ecumenical Synod. Both sets are the work of the Emperor Justinian and represent his actions against what appear to have been accusations of heresy believed to have been taught to varying degrees by warring groups of "Origenists" in the 6-th century. The Bishops gathered at Constantinople for both synods approved of Justinian's actions yet neither set is the work of an Ecumenical Synod as such.

This, however, does not mean that the specific items listed in the anathemas are not heresies! The way Universal Reconciliation is contextualized - as part of a larger framework of far out dualistic ideas about body and soul - is certainly heretical. The Church has received the anathemas as such and we ought to discern the voice of God's guidance in this. Yet not all possible contexts for Universal Salvation are thereby a priori heretical. Metr. Kallistos Ware (most recently) has indicated at least one context in which it is acceptable as a fully Orthodox belief in Vol. I of his collected works published by SVS Press (but also in his famous book "The Orthodox Chuch").

The Orthodox Church does not teach all must be saved, nor does it teach that some must be eternally lost. Both may be true depending upon the context in which such assertions are made as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned. It is crucial that free-will and God's salvific grace are given full weight in whichever of the two possibilities one may personally believe.

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

 

[elliotps932]

good question man.

 

[Protoevangel]

Recent scholarship - both Catholic and Orthodox - tend to separate the anathemas from this council.

So how exactly does "recent scholarship" trump the acceptance by the whole Church?

 

[Minty]

Thank you for your reply, Grigorii...very interesting reading

 

[Minty]

good question man.

Who me? Thanks

 

[Grigorii]

So how exactly does "recent scholarship" trump the acceptance by the whole Church?

I don't know. Maybe you could ask someone who believes something like that to be true?

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

 

[Grigorii]

Thank you for your reply, Grigorii...very interesting reading

You're welcome.

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

 

[Protoevangel]

I don't know. Maybe you could ask someone who believes something like that to be true?

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

Father bless.

Please forgive me if my question was a little pointed. I didn't mean it to be so. It's just that I'm a little confused by what you say here:

There is no official dogmatic position that is required of an Orthodox Christian in this regard. Yet often the Fifth Ecumenical Council is brought up because some still attribute one or two series of anathema (condemnations) to that council which condemn 6-th century Origenism. Recent scholarship - both Catholic and Orthodox - tend to separate the anathemas from this council.

The Fifth Ecumenical Counsel does seem to provide a dogmatic statement. This was, to the best of my knowledge (which I admit is greatly lacking), accepted by the whole Church. But it appears that you are calling that acceptance into question here, based on recent scholarship.

Please help me to better understand your point.

Again, please forgive me for the tone of my earlier post.

 

[Grigorii]

Father bless.

The blessing of the Lord be upon you.

Please forgive me if my question was a little pointed. I didn't mean it to be so. It's just that I'm a little confused by what you say here:


The Fifth Ecumenical Counsel does seem to provide a dogmatic statement. This was, to the best of my knowledge (which I admit is greatly lacking), accepted by the whole Church. But it appears that you are calling that acceptance into question here, based on recent scholarship.

Please help me to better understand your point.

Thank you for asking.

My point is that the Fifth Council's acts do not mention Origenism but only the "Three Chapters" (certain works of Ibas of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia) for their Nestorianism. The only sources we have which suggest that the Fifth Council produced the anathemas come from outside and after (often much after) the council. Cyril of Scythopolis is the main source for this idea - and he does his suggestion to clear his own heroes from heretical associations (St. Sabas and some of his disciples seem to have initially opposed the condemnation of the "Three Chapters"). Cyril, polemically, relates that the Fifth Council was gathered to condemn Origenism in the first place and in this polemic effort he attributes the condemnation of Origenism to this council. Cyril overstated his case as part of his rhetorical strategy - which was succesfull.

Now there are still scholars who attribute the 15 anathemas (not the 9) to the Fifth Council (most recently Fr. Theophanes (an Athonite Monk) in his research on Evagrius Ponticus), but Metr. Kallistos does not. This does not mean that the condemnations are without value. As I tried to explain, the anathemas have been accepted by the Church as condemnations of this kind of Universal Reconciliation it did not condemn the ideas of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isaac the Syrian to name the most famous two. The heresy condemned in the 15 anathemas are still condemned as such - but in the precise context of what is classically believed to be Origenism. I think in the life of the Church a distinction ought to be made between Origenism as such (and condemned) and Universal Reconciliation or apokatastasis - for the latter (apokatastasis) does not necessarily involve universal reconciliation it could also simply refer to the resurrection life which we confess in the Nicene Creed without implying the salvation of all.

Again, please forgive me for the tone of my earlier post.

All is well ... Don't worry.

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

 

[Protoevangel]

The blessing of the Lord be upon you.



Thank you for asking.

My point is that the Fifth Council's acts do not mention Origenism but only the "Three Chapters" (certain works of Ibas of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia) for their Nestorianism. The only sources we have which suggest that the Fifth Council produced the anathemas come from outside and after (often much after) the council. Cyril of Scythopolis is the main source for this idea - and he does his suggestion to clear his own heroes from heretical associations (St. Sabas and some of his disciples seem to have initially opposed the condemnation of the "Three Chapters"). Cyril, polemically, relates that the Fifth Council was gathered to condemn Origenism in the first place and in this polemic effort he attributes the condemnation of Origenism to this council. Cyril overstated his case as part of his rhetorical strategy - which was succesfull.

Now there are still scholars who attribute the 15 anathemas (not the 9) to the Fifth Council (most recently Fr. Theophanes (an Athonite Monk) in his research on Evagrius Ponticus), but Metr. Kallistos does not. This does not mean that the condemnations are without value. As I tried to explain, the anathemas have been accepted by the Church as condemnations of this kind of Universal Reconciliation it did not condemn the ideas of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isaac the Syrian to name the most famous two. The heresy condemned in the 15 anathemas are still condemned as such - but in the precise context of what is classically believed to be Origenism. I think in the life of the Church a distinction ought to be made between Origenism as such (and condemned) and Universal Reconciliation or apokatastasis - for the latter (apokatastasis) does not necessarily involve universal reconciliation it could also simply refer to the resurrection life which we confess in the Nicene Creed without implying the salvation of all.



All is well ... Don't worry.

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

Thank you for the explanation, Father.

I am still a little confused about how your explanation lines up with the text of the specific condemnation that I quoted above. But then again, it is certainly not my place to treat the canons and anathemas as proof-texts... If it were really as simple as applying the text in the plainest sense in an absolute manner, Sts Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, among others would be anathema instead of being Saints.

This is one of those matters that I will simply have to pray on, read more about, and stop pretending I understand.

Thank you again.

 

[Grigorii]

Thank you for the explanation, Father.

I am still a little confused about how your explanation lines up with the text of the specific condemnation that I quoted above. But then again, it is certainly not my place to treat the canons and anathemas as proof-texts... If it were really as simple as applying the text in the plainest sense in an absolute manner, Sts Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, among others would be anathema instead of being Saints.

Indeed.

This is one of those matters that I will simply have to pray on, read more about, and stop pretending I understand.

You quoted this anathema:
"If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασι&#962 will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema."
- The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen.
(Part and parcel of the The Fifth Ecumenical Council).

But in actual fact these anathemas belong to a local council of 543 - this is not in dispute as far as I know. In dispute are (sometimes) the 15 anathemas of 553. Either way the condemnation does not extend to Sts. Gregory and Isaac (at the least) so that a blanket condemnation of Universal Salvation is not the way this statement seems to have been received in the Church. This is why I think it is helpful to understand the context of this anathema which is the preexistence of souls and their fall into bodies and expected return to this bodiless state. It is this context that the word apkotatastasis implies here, and in precisely that sense is it a heresy. At least so it seems to me.

Does that help?

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

 

[Protoevangel]

Indeed.

You quoted this anathema:
"If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασι&#962 will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema."
- The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen.
(Part and parcel of the The Fifth Ecumenical Council).

But in actual fact these anathemas belong to a local council of 543 - this is not in dispute as far as I know. In dispute are (sometimes) the 15 anathemas of 553. Either way the condemnation does not extend to Sts. Gregory and Isaac (at the least) so that a blanket condemnation of Universal Salvation is not the way this statement seems to have been received in the Church. This is why I think it is helpful to understand the context of this anathema which is the preexistence of souls and their fall into bodies and expected return to this bodiless state. It is this context that the word apkotatastasis implies here, and in precisely that sense is it a heresy. At least so it seems to me.

Does that help?

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

Somewhat. I will try and give it time to sink in. Thank you Father.

 

[NyssaTheHobbit]

Hello members of TAW

I was wondering if I could possibly ask you all a question, please?

I have been reading about Christianity alot recently, and I have been also reading about Christian Universalism, and it was whilst reading about the latter that the Orthodox Church popped up.

My question is...is it true that the Orthodox Church believe in the concept of universal reconcilliation and this is the reason that it will not be re-united with Rome as they don't believe it? Do you all believe that ALL will enter heaven eventually?

Sorry if this seems to be a strange question, but I am really interested to see if this is the case, and I thought that rather than ask others that I would cut out the middle man and ask you all directly

I hope that you don't mind my asking, and I do hope that my question hasn't offended you in any way...if it has, I am truly sorry, as that was never my intention

LOL....Don't worry about offending. This question pops up ALL the time on Orthodox forums. Like you, I first became interested in Orthodox teachings while reading up on Universalism. I started websurfing and asking questions and finally came across "The River of Fire" by Alexandre Kalomiros. That took me away from Universalism and to Orthodoxy, because it was not at all the image of a vindictive deity, but without being soft on evil.
http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm