Could I ask a question please?

[Minty]

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

Thank you Bookmarked for later reading

 

[andreha]

Hey Minty!

I had a vision yesterday - about Jesus, and the end times. (Posted in the Visions / Dreams thread)

After reading Acts 2:17, as well as Acts 16:31, it makes it clear that you just need to believe in Jesus Christ. You are unable to stop believing, because you automatically get dealt a measure of faith. I do believe that God is going to raise His voice quite dramatically, to call people to listen. In the last days, His voice will be *very* difficult to ignore. After all, He said that He'll pour out His spirit to all mankind in the last days. It's by the move of the Holy Spirit that people believe.

(@Minty - one day, in heaven, I'll walk up to you and say "Told you so.")

 

[jckstraw72]

how could universal reconciliation be a possibility when Christ Himself speaks of people being in eternal Hell, and that only a few will enter into Heaven?

 

[RedPhoenix]

how could universal reconciliation be a possibility when Christ Himself speaks of people being in eternal Hell, and that only a few will enter into Heaven?

I would have to agree with jckstraw.

 

[Grigorii]

how could universal reconciliation be a possibility when Christ Himself speaks of people being in eternal Hell, and that only a few will enter into Heaven?

That's a good question!

Perhaps Sts. Gregory of Nyssa or Isaac the Syrian could help you find an answer from within an Orthodox frame of reference?

Perhaps there is no such reconciliation at all! But ... than again, perhaps there is and what Jesus is saying is less obvious and more profound than it seems at first sight?

I do not presume to be able to answer any of this for you, especially where the Church leaves things open.

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

 

[Gwenyfur]

I'm actually finding this rather fascinating...as so far my studies hadn't even begun to address Univeralism but instead how Christ's forgiveness applies to the heterodox...

but with that in mind...I can see how it could be considered on a broader sense...

mind you, I'm a n00b and still rather clueless and learning...but definitely an interesting loop to read up on a bit...

Ironically just in time for Lent....and I was wondering what I was going to study up on this next week or two

Thanks Minty for the question...
Proto, Brother as always you keep me thinking and learning

Father Bless!
Welcome to CF Fr Grigorii

 

[jckstraw72]

if universalism is true then it seems to me that Christianity is pointless. I can live as wantonly as i want now, have a ball, and know that i'll still be reconciled. that's the implications of it as far as i can tell at least.

 

[gzt]

You could go on a sinning spree right now knowing that you could repent later and confess your sins. Why don't you? Is the fear of ultimate hell the only thing keeping you back?

 

[jckstraw72]

You could go on a sinning spree right now knowing that you could repent later and confess your sins. Why don't you? Is the fear of ultimate hell the only thing keeping you back?

a sinning spree could so harden my heart that i would never repent though .... but that doesnt matter if universalism is true.

 

[Grigorii]

if universalism is true then it seems to me that Christianity is pointless. I can live as wantonly as i want now, have a ball, and know that i'll still be reconciled. that's the implications of it as far as i can tell at least.

Since a universalism which purports to be Orthodox must incorporate free-will, it would only work if repentance occurs. Without repentance there is no salvation this - as far as I can tell - is a given for both st. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Isaac (and even for Origen with whose universalism I am much more familiar). Christianity is only pointless if it depended on predestination (either singular or double).

In fact, I find it exceptionally hard to reconcile any kind of predestination with Christianity.

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

 

[jckstraw72]

wouldnt universalism mean everyone will repent?

 

[Grigorii]

wouldnt universalism mean everyone will repent?

Precisely! That way it is up to freely choosing or rejecting. What universalists, such the above mentioned saints could, at the utmost, say is that they believe all will be saved freely because God foreknows it and revealed it in the Scriptures (as they indeed do, I think) - distinguishing foreknowledge from predestination.

Of course there are many areas to disagree here. One or two of which could be "whether or not foreknowledge and predestination can be separated in this way" and/or "the Scriptures can legitimately be read that way?" To which an answer must be found.

Fr. John Behr, for example, would object to universalism (it seems) on the basis that one's hypostasis or person (who-you-are) is still being formed up to the point of death. Death "seals your hypostasis" and what-you-are has been fully "written" (the narrative of your life is complete) and what is left is the judgment upon one's life (to damnation or salvation respectively). This way of reading the Scriptures (with the Fathers and a hint of Heidegger) does not seem to allow for universalism.

Iow I see no way of certainty either way. Perhaps such uncertainty is the pastoral wisdom of the Church to prevent us from focussing our lives in the (speculations about) afterlife rather than in the one given us in the here and now?

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

 

[buzuxi02]

The belief in universal salvation is not a belief of Orthodoxy. It has had some resurgence, due mostly to Bishop Kalistos Ware, unfortunately the good bishop has some unusual beliefs which is not limited to universalism only.

St Gregory of Nyssa claimed all had the "potential" to be saved, not that all "will" be saved. Secondly St Gregory is not an authority on the subject at hand, since he was heavily influenced by Origen's writings. His brother St Basil the great who was not influenced by Origen held to the contrary opinion. Many also believe it was St Gregory's belief in universalism as to why he is omitted in the icon of the Three Heirarchs.
St Isaac of Syria believed in a kind of universalism heavily influenced by Theodore of Mopuestia, because it is a common belief of the Syrian Church of the East but not of the Orthodox Church.
Bishop Hilarion wrote a paper on this and pointed out some differenced between Origens views and that of St Isaac. Bishop Hilarion had to later explain that universalism is not a belief that he holds, that he only explains what St Isaac beliefs are within the framework of the nestorian church. here is that article:

No 144 (April 08, 2008) » Europaica Bulletin » OrthodoxEurope.org

 

[Minty]

Thank you all so very much for your replies...I am finding the Orthodox faith fascinating

 

[jckstraw72]

wouldnt universalism mean everyone will repent?
​

Precisely!

i just cant see how thats too different from predestination -- in either system my fate is set irregardless of anything i do or desire.

 

[Grigorii]

i just cant see how thats too different from predestination -- in either system my fate is set irregardless of anything i do or desire.

Only if you so choose.

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

 

[jckstraw72]

Only if you so choose.

yes but you said all will choose. if its a guarantee that i will choose to repent is there really any freedom? Universalism denies my ability to freely choose damnation.

 

[Grigorii]

yes but you said all will choose. if its a guarantee that i will choose to repent is there really any freedom? Universalism denies my ability to freely choose damnation.

No. What I said was:

"That way it is up to freely choosing or rejecting. What universalists, such the above mentioned saints could, at the utmost, say is that they believe all will be saved freely because God foreknows it and revealed it in the Scriptures (as they indeed do, I think) - distinguishing foreknowledge from predestination."

Where will is not a statement of predestination but of foreknowledge.

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

 

[Macarius]

I have to agree that this doesn't sound different from a form of single-predestination. God may know if all are saved, but for me to claim that knowledge would compromise free will. We must be open to the possibility that not all are saved in the end. If we don't have room in our theology for that potential, then functionally there isn't free will.

I once asked a Calvinist for his opinion on free will, and he said that he believed in it whole heartedly - he just thought that God's offer of grace is SO powerful that no one WILL CHOSE to resist it (thus making it irresistable). He emphasized that we still have choice, just that we can predict from the Scriptures which choice will make (we'll accept grace if offered it, but of our own free will).

Since he whole-heartedly believed this idea of us accepting God's grace irresistably to be given in the Scriptures, his case seems analgous to to this one. Fr. Gregory, forgive me, but if the consensus of the Church (and even canons, though suspect ones, of an ecumenical council) declare that this is NOT proclaimed in the Scriptures, aren't we as Orthodox Christians obliged to treat is as extremely suspect?

This is an honest question: how are you different from my Calvinist friend mentioned above who sincerly saw double predestination in the Scriptures but used your same line of reasoning to protect free will? You may only see single predestination, but at the point that you doctrinally declare that you KNOW all are saved, doesn't that functionally compromise free will in the same way we would say Calvinism functionally compromises free will (even despite the explanation and conviction of my friend)?

Forgive me,
Macarius

 

[Grigorii]

I have to agree that this doesn't sound different from a form of single-predestination. God may know if all are saved, but for me to claim that knowledge would compromise free will. We must be open to the possibility that not all are saved in the end. If we don't have room in our theology for that potential, then functionally there isn't free will.

I am not sure that this is what it is. It seems to me that since God is outside time and foreknows does not require predestination. It is certainly true that it is possible some will not be saved. But it would be predestination to assert that some will be lost (insofar as the free-will of those being lost is denied them). What I am saying is that God foreknew our fall (without predestinating it) and foreknows the end (telos) to which all creation is heading. If scripture can be read in the way St. Gregory and Isaac did it than God has revealed that the end He has foreknown is that all will be reconciled with Him. If it cannot be read that way than some will be lost (again this is not pre-determined).

I once asked a Calvinist for his opinion on free will, and he said that he believed in it whole heartedly - he just thought that God's offer of grace is SO powerful that no one WILL CHOSE to resist it (thus making it irresistable). He emphasized that we still have choice, just that we can predict from the Scriptures which choice will make (we'll accept grace if offered it, but of our own free will).

He seems to have made an attempt at explaining the principles of first and second cause - the idea that God's elect will be infallibly saved because God's will created their wills such that they freely choose to be saved. Which is single predestination and is a doctrine I do not accept (though it has been around ever since St. Augustine of Hippo and is under no condemnation to the best of my knowledge). I am aware of several attempts of reconciling free-will and single predestination but none of them have succeeded in convincing me.

Since he whole-heartedly believed this idea of us accepting God's grace irresistably to be given in the Scriptures, his case seems analgous to to this one. Fr. Gregory, forgive me, but if the consensus of the Church (and even canons, though suspect ones, of an ecumenical council) declare that this is NOT proclaimed in the Scriptures, aren't we as Orthodox Christians obliged to treat is as extremely suspect?

Perhaps. It certainly ought to raise a flag for us. Yet the failure of the Church to condemn saints and theologians of the past and present who adhere to versions of universalism ought to qualify the perceived consensus of the Church - I mean it should bring into sharper focus what it is that is being rejected and what is not. The kind of universalism defended by St. Gregory, and St. Isaac has not been condemned and should qualify any statement concerning the status of universalism in the Orthodox Church.

This is an honest question: how are you different from my Calvinist friend mentioned above who sincerly saw double predestination in the Scriptures but used your same line of reasoning to protect free will? You may only see single predestination, but at the point that you doctrinally declare that you KNOW all are saved, doesn't that functionally compromise free will in the same way we would say Calvinism functionally compromises free will (even despite the explanation and conviction of my friend)?

The core of the question is really this: "Can foreknowledge exist without predestination?" Sts. Gregory and Isaac certainly seemed to think so - as do I - but this opinion (for that is what it is) is not without philosophical problems (and for that matter neither is any other opinion in this regard). The difference between me and your friend is that I believe foreknowledge and predestination are two concepts that do not share a causal relation. In fact, not only do I find double predestination unacceptable but I would include single predestination among unacceptable doctrines. Again, I am aware that Thomists and Neo-Thomists (and some Orthodox friends of mine) have vigoroulsy defended the idea that free-will and single predestination are compattible (in the sense described above of first and second cause), but I remain unconvinced that there can be such a thing as single predestination (I think predestination is always double and therefore never acceptable).

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen