David Bentley Hart a universalist

[ArmyMatt]

He was also cruel; he subjected Manichees to the death penalty. "Manichees who obstinately refused to abjure their doctrines were gathered on ships that were then set on fire so that they might be buried in the waves." quoted from chapter 2 (p.53), Byzantine Christianity: Emperor, Church & the West by Harry J. Magoulias (Rand McNally ed. c. 1970, Lib. of Cong. # 70-75615) http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Christianity-Emperor-Church-West/dp/B001MBI508

oh I don't deny that he sinned, but he is a saint for a reason, and the mistakes he made in his life (no matter how awful) don't overshadow his holiness. and that is no reason for someone like DBH to merely dismiss him as a brutish imbecile.

 

[jckstraw72]

Your view of Augustine certainly represents one Orthodox view, but there is a significant element of Orthodoxy that views him as having sowed the seed of Western heresy and thus undeserving of the title "saint". An extreme example of this view is that of Fr Michael Azkoul. I do not know how popular such is but it exists.

Energetic Procession has a good overview of the range of Orthodox views:https://energeticprocession.wordpre...ine-the-dialectic-of-opposition-in-orthodoxy/

My impression is that Orthodox tend to view St John Chrysostom>Blessed Augustine>Origen and their titles are adjusted accordingly.

well, just so to be clear here --- Fr. Michael Azkoul has been in various different schismatic jurisdictions and associated with some of their worst elements. And on that page they are discussing a work of Dr. Joseph Farrell who is no longer Orthodox and is himself quite odd! Just so we know who we're talking about here ...

 

[buzuxi02]

Interesting thought...

Or on the flipside - is it really still free will if God creates consequence so severe for one path that there is really only one logical choice? Eternal bliss on one side - eternal hell fire on the other - is this really a choice? Of course, it seems that some people still choose the later, but do they really believe that they have chosen such?

But the thing is most people do yearn for that eternal hellfire. Aside from the theological understanding of souls being attracted like to like. For most people there is no virtue in what is described as 'eternal bliss'. A person who is accustomed to frequenting the popular night spots of a cosmopolitan city does not find appealing an eternal bliss of being surrounded by the apostles and an innumerable amount of bearded pious monks and by St Paraskevi and the Theotokos.
Like that T-shirt which reads, "good girls go to heaven but bad girls go everywhere", a person with that mentality is not desiring to be in the abode of St. George, etc.


In other words those condemned in eternal hell fire will still find it more appealing, they wont see the pastures being greener on the other side.

 

[MilesVitae]

A person who is accustomed to frequenting the popular night spots of a cosmopolitan city does not find appealing an eternal bliss of being surrounded by the apostles and an innumerable amount of bearded pious monks and by St Paraskevi and the Theotokos.

Well, pardon me.... I'll have you know, the craft beer pubs which are my usual night spots are frequented by an abundance of the bearded (though I admittedly am unable to vouch for their piety)

 

[ArmyMatt]

In other words those condemned in eternal hell fire will still find it more appealing, they wont see the pastures being greener on the other side.

this right here. those in hell, however many end up in there, are there by choice because they prefer it to heaven.

and great to see you again Miles.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

He was also cruel; he subjected Manichees to the death penalty. "Manichees who obstinately refused to abjure their doctrines were gathered on ships that were then set on fire so that they might be buried in the waves." quoted from chapter 2 (p.53), Byzantine Christianity: Emperor, Church & the West by Harry J. Magoulias (Rand McNally ed. c. 1970, Lib. of Cong. # 70-75615) http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Christianity-Emperor-Church-West/dp/B001MBI508

Indeed....there was a mean streak.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting thought...

Or on the flipside - is it really still free will if God creates consequence so severe for one path that there is really only one logical choice? Eternal bliss on one side - eternal hell fire on the other - is this really a choice? Of course, it seems that some people still choose the later, but do they really believe that they have chosen such?

Of course DBH would probably say that freedom has nothing to do with choice - that our choices in the fallen world are practically inherent bad choices and thus only enslave us - therefore we are not really free. Freedom can only be found in being what we are (or meant to be), in that only in Christ are we free.

So have I come full circle? It would seem that the only will that free is the will that in harmony with God's will. All others are slaves to sin. Which would be all of us

Interesting perspective...

 

[Isaac32]

this right here. those in hell, however many end up in there, are there by choice because they prefer it to heaven.

and great to see you again Miles.

The problem, though, is that there is a significant difference between preferring things as they appear and things as they really are. For instance, imagine someone asking you which of two trucks in front of you is faster, and you choose the truck on the right because you read in a recent article that that model had a higher top speed. Now imagine that the questioner reveals to you that the truck on the left actually goes faster because the truck you chose had its engine taken out. Do those who choose hell make their decision not knowing what is "under the hood," as it were, or do you believe they know the car on the right doesn't have an engine, but they choose it as the faster vehicle anyways?

 

[ArmyMatt]

no they know what is under the hood. anyone who ends up in hell is fully aware of the choice they are making.

 

[buzuxi02]

How do we know they dont appreciate hell?

Ive encountered all sorts of people as we all have. Most of them have been secularists by choice because they enjoy that path. I remember a few years ago I worked with a young woman who abandoned her husband for what she called the thug life. Basically her husband was too much of a nice guy and was attracted to douchebag gangstas, so she found one and genuinely loved the lifestyle. We all know people like this.

Believe me the last thing a Caligula like person wants is to hang out with Jesus and virgin nuns

 

[Ignatius21]

But the thing is most people do yearn for that eternal hellfire. Aside from the theological understanding of souls being attracted like to like. For most people there is no virtue in what is described as 'eternal bliss'. A person who is accustomed to frequenting the popular night spots of a cosmopolitan city does not find appealing an eternal bliss of being surrounded by the apostles and an innumerable amount of bearded pious monks and by St Paraskevi and the Theotokos.
Like that T-shirt which reads, "good girls go to heaven but bad girls go everywhere", a person with that mentality is not desiring to be in the abode of St. George, etc.


In other words those condemned in eternal hell fire will still find it more appealing, they wont see the pastures being greener on the other side.

A guy I used to work with once said, "If hell will be full of drinkers, gamblers and hookers...why exactly would I not want to be there?"

 

[Ignatius21]

The problem, though, is that there is a significant difference between preferring things as they appear and things as they really are. For instance, imagine someone asking you which of two trucks in front of you is faster, and you choose the truck on the right because you read in a recent article that that model had a higher top speed. Now imagine that the questioner reveals to you that the truck on the left actually goes faster because the truck you chose had its engine taken out. Do those who choose hell make their decision not knowing what is "under the hood," as it were, or do you believe they know the car on the right doesn't have an engine, but they choose it as the faster vehicle anyways?

I think you make a good point here. A consequence of the Fall, of sin and passion, is that it corrupts and warps our view of reality. What we think we prefer, and what we think is pleasurable, is in reality destructive and harmful. We've probably all known (sadly) people with addiction who come to view their drugs, alcohol, etc. as being actually *good* for them, and even have all kinds of reasons and explanations for why they're happier with it, and it really doesn't hurt them, and how it's the rest of us who aren't seeing the reality--and they cling to it even as those around them watch their minds, bodies and lives fall apart. Their view of reality is warped--they see things "as they appear" rather than "as they really are" to use your view.

I suppose when it comes to sin, our passions may vary from one to another, but we're all junkies with warped views of reality.

 

[Isaac32]

no they know what is under the hood. anyone who ends up in hell is fully aware of the choice they are making.

Based on what you say, I then assume you and I either have drastically different understandings of what hell is like, or what human beings are actually capable of freely choosing. For instance, I reject the notion that a person would freely choose to suffer eternally. There is a quote from Bruce Marshall that says ". . .the young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconsciously looking for God." The idea is that, we as human beings seek out and choose what we perceive to be the good, or the best option. This doesn't mean that what we perceive to be the good actually is, but rather that our perception is flawed, and I would posit that anyone who chooses hell likewise would do so thinking that there is no better option available. Would this really be a free decision, though?

 

[Isaac32]

How do we know they dont appreciate hell?

Ive encountered all sorts of people as we all have. Most of them have been secularists by choice because they enjoy that path. I remember a few years ago I worked with a young woman who abandoned her husband for what she called the thug life. Basically her husband was too much of a nice guy and was attracted to douchebag gangstas, so she found one and genuinely loved the lifestyle. We all know people like this.

Believe me the last thing a Caligula like person wants is to hang out with Jesus and virgin nuns

It is one thing if they would experience all the same pleasures and enjoyments, but quite another if they would find no satisfaction in hell. It is in our nature as human beings to choose things that satisfy us. Once the satisfaction is gone we no longer choose the option, unless an addiction is formed, but addiction takes away free will.

 

[MilesVitae]

no they know what is under the hood. anyone who ends up in hell is fully aware of the choice they are making.

I've always had trouble buying this claim. Do people really understand what hell is like? "The worst place in the world! With devils and those caves and the ragged clothing! And the heat!" ...That doesn't quite cover it... Do they truly fathom the despair, darkness, the agony of hell? And if they don't, does that fact destroy this line of defense - or does it imply very few people go there?

I also don't really swallow the idea expressed by Buzuxie either: "A person who is accustomed to frequenting the popular night spots of a cosmopolitan city does not find appealing an eternal bliss of being surrounded by the apostles and an innumerable amount of bearded pious monks and by St Paraskevi and the Theotokos." The implication being they will find hell a bit more to in keeping with their habits on earth.... but why start from that end? One could say "the average person accustomed to pleasure, partying, drinking and dancing does not find appealing an eternal agony of wrapped up in one's own sins along with the devil and the most evil, hateful creatures in God's creation...."

 

[ArmyMatt]

Based on what you say, I then assume you and I either have drastically different understandings of what hell is like, or what human beings are actually capable of freely choosing. For instance, I reject the notion that a person would freely choose to suffer eternally. There is a quote from Bruce Marshall that says ". . .the young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconsciously looking for God." The idea is that, we as human beings seek out and choose what we perceive to be the good, or the best option. This doesn't mean that what we perceive to be the good actually is, but rather that our perception is flawed, and I would posit that anyone who chooses hell likewise would do so thinking that there is no better option available. Would this really be a free decision, though?

Adam and Eve did not sin in ignorance, neither did Israel with the golden calf, neither did Judas, etc. human history is ripe with folks knowingly choosing the doom and gloom over the good.

I've always had trouble buying this claim. Do people really understand what hell is like? "The worst place in the world! With devils and those caves and the ragged clothing! And the heat!" ...That doesn't quite cover it... Do they truly fathom the despair, darkness, the agony of hell? And if they don't, does that fact destroy this line of defense - or does it imply very few people go there?

they don't now, but they will. Godwilling no one chooses hell. our prayer should be that hell is empty. but there will come a day when we will have to make the choice of who we want to follow: God or ourselves. hopefully we all choose God.

I also don't really swallow the idea expressed by Buzuxie either: "A person who is accustomed to frequenting the popular night spots of a cosmopolitan city does not find appealing an eternal bliss of being surrounded by the apostles and an innumerable amount of bearded pious monks and by St Paraskevi and the Theotokos." The implication being they will find hell a bit more to in keeping with their habits on earth.... but why start from that end? One could say "the average person accustomed to pleasure, partying, drinking and dancing does not find appealing an eternal agony of wrapped up in one's own sins along with the devil and the most evil, hateful creatures in God's creation...."

well, if you spend your life filling your heart with everything opposed to God, and then you meet Him, you probably won't like that encounter. in fact, fleeing that encounter would probably be more what someone would want to do. the problem is at that point, there is nowhere to flee.

but again, that is IF anyone ends up in hell. Godwilling the number is zero.

 

[buzuxi02]

Obviously Im using hyperbole when I use the examples im using. A better question is, what is the nature of heaven?

I cant see how a specific person who rejects the narrow path in return for a decadent one would yearn for a paradise reserved for those that accept that narrow path. Just like I wouldnt find appealing a protestant heaven with Calvin, Zwingli, Hinn and a bunch of bible thumpers. Yes a simplistic and naive vew of heaven but regardless most people will not be enticed by heaven unless you can convince them that 72 virgins will await them in heaven. Which also is a naive view.

If you prefer a more theological explanation perhaps I can try and give one. If the person while in the body rejects dispassion and embraces the indulgences of the passions, then the soul when seperated from the body cannot embrace that apatheia, it has never been trained nor ever felt the need in moderating the passions. There is no calm in such a soul and is pulled violently away from its divine goal attracting like for like.

 

[Isaac32]

Adam and Eve did not sin in ignorance, neither did Israel with the golden calf, neither did Judas, etc. human history is ripe with folks knowingly choosing the doom and gloom over the good.

Actually, many Orthodox theology scholars (John Behr, John Romanides, Kallistos Ware) have posited that is exactly what Adam and Eve did. Remember that they were like infants, not knowing good from evil. Another important thing to remember is Christ's words on the cross: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." To claim that those who crucified Christ were unaware that they were nailing a Jewish man named Jesus to a cross would be silly. They were obviously aware of what they were doing in some sense. What Christ means when he says they don't know what they are doing, he means that they don't know what is hidden from them, that the man they just killed is the Son of God.

I am sure it is similar in many instances of sin. We always know at a superficial level what we are doing, but we rarely, if ever, understand the full impact of our actions.

Fr. Stephen Freeman had this to say on his blog:

The Orthodox teaching regarding the will is more complex than is commonly discussed, and many people get confused as a result. The will, properly, is the natural will, something that belongs to our nature, and is therefore not fallen. A nature always wills its proper end – that’s why it’s a nature.

But fallen man has a different experience. We have been fragmented and we experience what St. Maximus calls the “gnomic will.” This is the will that is governed by choice, rationality, desire, etc. And it doesn’t get it right. Salvation ultimately heals this fragmentation and we have true integrity of will and always want to do what our nature does. This is also the proper definition of freedom. Freedom is the ability of a nature to fulfill its end.

The gnomic will doesn’t have an end. It’s more like noise. It is not free. It is not involved in “free will.” It’s just choice. Indeed, the gnomic will is more or less what it means to be enslaved. We are enslaved by the gnomic will and do not act in accordance with the end of our nature.

God, I think, is not underwriting the bondage of the gnomic will for eternity. I do not begin to understand the whole story of our ultimate healing. But a lot of people waste a lot of breath defending a notion of freedom that is neither Biblical nor Patristic.

The gnomic will is why Dino says it “needs ignorance.” It’s our broken notion of freedom. It is interesting that in the dogma of the Church, Christ clearly has no gnomic will. He does not experience “gnome.” He is without sin. To experience gnome is the very heart of sin.

Much that happens in our lives – prayer, fasting, repentance, etc. – are disciplines that are slowly putting to death the gnomic will and experiencing and fulfilling the natural will. This is part of what is meant by becoming “truly” human. If you do not live in accordance with your nature, how can you be truly human? To be human is to live in accordance with human nature. Christ is what “truly” human looks like. He is the true Adam.

There is also the “hypostatic principle” as described by the Elder Sophrony, in which as true Person, we embody the natural will. That true Personhood is so much more than what common parlor talk describes as being a person. Strangely, fallen man is neither truly human, nor truly personal.

The hypostatic principle is love – all-embracing, all-encompassing union with God and all creation. It self-empties and finds itself in the Other. It is the life of the Holy Trinity lived by man in accordance with his nature. It is in the realm of Person that our salvation takes place primarily. The Person is that which gives expression to the nature. All of our disciplines are geared towards the Person.

I tend to have a very strong reading on God’s role in our salvation. He intervenes (clearly). The action of the Incarnation and Pascha are the work of a God is utterly active for our salvation. But for the Person to be truly Personal, freedom is required. This freedom, I think, isn’t always simply about the will. But that’s a bit of a mystery. It is like Fr. Thomas Hopko used to say, “Sometimes I want to want to…” It is a free orientation towards God, even when willing is too great.

CSLewis says that he became a Christian the same summer that he learned to dive (in water). And he compared the experience. His story resonates with my experience. I first learned to dive the year I got “saved” as well. Standing on the board, frightened beyond description, taunted by my swimming teacher, cheered by friends, I eventually, more or less made an almost suicidal decision to give myself over to falling head-first into the water. “Willing” it would have been ever so much prettier. But I sort of fell off the board in a manner that had intention at some level – if barely.

I think that our salvation often begins in such a manner (our real salvation). I’ve done some things with the simple understanding that “this is the sort of thing real Christians do,” but not with a whole lot of faith. Like falling head-first off a diving board.

Most of the conversations about free-will are too clean and pretty. Falling off the board, I allowed my nature to have its way – I fell into the water.

 

[jckstraw72]

Dr. Christopher Veniamin taught us that it was hard for Adam and Eve to sin.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Actually, many Orthodox theology scholars (John Behr, John Romanides, Kallistos Ware) have posited that is exactly what Adam and Eve did. Remember that they were like infants, not knowing good from evil.

while true they were innocent, they did know that God told them not to touch it.

Another important thing to remember is Christ's words on the cross: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." To claim that those who crucified Christ were unaware that they were nailing a Jewish man named Jesus to a cross would be silly. They were obviously aware of what they were doing in some sense. What Christ means when he says they don't know what they are doing, he means that they don't know what is hidden from them, that the man they just killed is the Son of God.

yeah, I did not say that everyone who sins knows what they are doing. but the fact is that God told Adam and Eve no, and they did it anyway. God did all these miracles and His glory is seen upon the mountain, and they still make the golden calf. they might not have known the implications or exact consequences of what they were doing, but they were not merely ignorant folk who didn't know better.