David Bentley Hart

[Light of the East]

In doing some wandering around the Internet, I found an interesting article regarding David Bentley Hart and his response to the Indian Ocean tsunami. He was apparently dissatisfied with the responses from both Christians and atheists and penned a small book called THE DOORS OF THE SEA.

The blog I was reading ends with an apparent nod to Hart's universalism: Our end is not in sorrow, but infinite joy, because the God whom we worship will deliver us from all evil.

To which I have posted the following:


Lovely thinking, but it still does not answer the question of hell and eternal torment as found in the Scriptures. I realize that Hart is a universalist, for whom salvation is all-inclusive. That is to say, in his paradigm, every man and woman, after a period of restorative chastening in the next life, shall enter into the glory of God's love and the redeemed Kingdom. That is a lovely thought, but it poses further problems which appear to have no answers.

The main problem is that it is not David Bentley Hart who is spoken of in the Scriptures as the "pillar and ground of truth." It is the Church, and the Church has made it quite clear that any other theology than eternal damnation for the wicked is heretical and not to be followed. Which raises this problem: if Hart is right, and the Church (both Orthodox East and Catholic West) are wrong, then Protestantism in all its forms (tens of thousands at last count) can lay claim to being "the truth."

Take away the authority of the Church to hold the truth without error and you open the door for theological chaos. Truth then becomes subjective, open to the whims of every man who thinks he has some sort of "special leading" of the Holy Spirit, whether it be Jimmy Swaggart's Honky-Tonk Blues Religion or Ellen White's mysterious light falling upon a certain verse in the Scriptures, by which she was convinced that God has directly spoken to her.

This said, if the Church has issued on the fate of the soul in the next life, and if indeed there is a hell to be feared and avoided, and if Christ Jesus and relationship to Him is the ONLY way to avoid said lake of fire, then there is a high degree of possibility that the majority of those who perished in the tsunami are in that hell right now.

Which means that A.) God never intended for them to be saved B.) the Calvinists are right C.) we are all pretty much screwed, except of course, for those who God, in His inscrutable way has decided to "save" and bring to His Kingdom in the next life.

You say that our end is not sorrow, but infinite joy. The Church says differently. If what the Church teaches is not true, then to whom do I go and whom do I trust for the truth?

I would very much appreciate a response to this, as I am slowly watching my faith in a "good God" drain from me like so much water leaving a leaking sink.

Just looking for a little conversation on this point. What is your take on the following question:

What does it mean to be the "pillar and ground of truth?" Does that mean that the truth is everything ever taught by the Church, or does it have a more narrow focus, i.e., that Gospel "good news" which the Apostles preached - not getting "saved" but the RESURRECTION. It is the Resurrection which was the main focus of Paul's preaching.

Is this the "truth" which the Church protects and all else is somewhat up for grabs? I say this because I see in both the East and the West terrible heretical tendencies, from the Arianism of all the Eastern bishops to the strange doctrines of the Latin Church.

What is truth? Yes, yes, Christ is truth, but it seems that truth is no longer just Him, but all the accretions of barnacles on the Ship of the Church.

Forgive me, I'm rambling. I've had another bad day and will be heading to Confession tomorrow.

 

[beardedone]

I understand your dilemma regarding the Church as the "pillar and ground of truth." But I don't think this issue (life after death) can or should be something that affects your view of the Church as the "pillar and ground of truth," or your faith in a "good God." The Church has never dogmatized the issue--aside from condemning Origen's view of universalism (which included the Devil/demons).

 

[GregConstantine]

Can you give a greater context? Because that quote, all by itself, could be interpreted as universalism. It could also be interpreted in other ways too. For example, if I say "Christ has saved us from death," am I saying everyone will be saved regardless? No, but it could be interpreted in a number of ways.

 

[Light of the East]

Can you give a greater context? Because that quote, all by itself, could be interpreted as universalism. It could also be interpreted in other ways too. For example, if I say "Christ has saved us from death," am I saying everyone will be saved regardless? No, but it could be interpreted in a number of ways.

Here is the entire article:

http://davidberge.com/?p=53#comment-15034

 

[GregConstantine]

I wouldn't worry about it. No one outside of a few converts know who David Bently Hart is. He has little to no influence on worldwide Orthodoxy.

We reject universalism in the strictest definition of that word. So no worries.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I tend to stay away from commenting on such things, because I've read what seem to me to be very contradictory things from various Saints on the topic. And as we know, we don't consider any person to be infallible anyway.

I do read many things that give me cause for hope. Not that "all will be saved" ... I just try to remember that isn't my business. But more along the lines of "all who want to be saved will be saved" and I think that is enough to give hope and still gives us an infinitely loving God.

I have met those who truly do seem to desire darkness, who seem to truly hate God and don't want any part of Him, even if He simply offers them salvation freely. I can't understand that. I don't know if THEY misunderstand, and perhaps inside there really is a germ of goodness. I don't know. Not my place to judge. I do hope for them as well. But only God knows.

I'm not sure I'm willing to say much more, except that this (the possibility that "everyone who wants to be saved will be saved") is what I apply to everyone else, though at any opportunity I offer them my own understanding for myself. What I apply to myself is the necessity of doing all I can, repenting of all shortcomings and sins I become aware of, cooperating with God to the best of my ability, hoping to be changed into the likeness of Christ, and considering that a necessity for salvation.

That, and prayers for them as well as for myself, is all I can see to do.

But everything is built on the foundation of a good and loving God, and trust in Him. That trust is the basis of everything. For me it goes back to the time I asked Father about the loss of a baby yet unborn, and so of course unbaptized, etc. Father said that we hope and trust in the mercy of God. Put together with my understanding of Him as good and loving, that becomes a source of hope. But never a thing to be presumed upon.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What does it mean to be the "pillar and ground of truth?" Does that mean that the truth is everything ever taught by the Church, or does it have a more narrow focus, i.e., that Gospel "good news" which the Apostles preached - not getting "saved" but the RESURRECTION.

the Church as the pillar and ground means that it is the upholder and support of the Truth being the Body and Bride of Christ. it is no more narrow or expansive than what the Spirit illumined the Apostles is what we believe today. no more, no less.

Is this the "truth" which the Church protects and all else is somewhat up for grabs? I say this because I see in both the East and the West terrible heretical tendencies, from the Arianism of all the Eastern bishops to the strange doctrines of the Latin Church.

it's not that all else is up for grabs, and the heretic is the one who tried to add, subtract, or distort that illumination of Pentecost.

What is truth? Yes, yes, Christ is truth, but it seems that truth is no longer just Him, but all the accretions of barnacles on the Ship of the Church.

actually, the Truth is Christ and it is no longer than just Him. everything we believe points to Orthodoxy's undiluted vision of Him, and the unchanging experience of His life.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

This convert has no idea who David Bentley Hart is.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This convert has no idea who David Bentley Hart is.

Yeah the name is one I think I've heard others discuss (probably in here) but not anything I took an interest in. I don't know who he is.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This convert has no idea who David Bentley Hart is.

he is an Orthodox academic who has some questionable stuff.

 

[~Anastasia~]

he is an Orthodox academic who has some questionable stuff.

Good to be warned.

If I heard it before, I'd forgotten it. But I tend to remember who to generally trust, and not pay much attention to the questionable ones. Still, good to know.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Good to be warned.

If I heard it before, I'd forgotten it. But I tend to remember who to generally trust, and not pay much attention to the questionable ones. Still, good to know.

he doesn't have all bad stuff, he is just convinced of universal salvation so it's best to be careful around him. I heard a few folks I know say he denies or downplays the role of theosis in salvation.

just be careful with DBH

 

[~Anastasia~]

he doesn't have all bad stuff, he is just convinced of universal salvation so it's best to be careful around him. I heard a few folks I know say he denies or downplays the role of theosis in salvation.

just be careful with DBH

Well, the chances are, I won't have anything to do with him. I have too much in line TO read, and it's mostly things that everyone has heard of. I used to get through things very quickly, but anymore it sometimes takes me months to read theological books, so ... I doubt in terms of spiritual writings that DBH will be making it to the top of my list in my lifetime.

I do thank you very much for the detailed information. It can be helpful if it comes up that I read something in an article. I should keep a file on such things for my own reference. Thank you.

 

[Kristos]

DBH is a patristic scholar. When he is accused of "universalism", it's usually when he is making a point from St Gregory Nyssa. There are fine points, but clearly neither espouse the Origen version that was condemned. "The Doors of the Sea" is actually a very good little book that deals with a subject rarely taken up in a modern context - theodicy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well I know he is no fan of St Justinian, and I think one of the reasons is that was the council that condemned Origen. while his universalism is not the same as Origen, it also is not the same as St Gregory.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This convert has no idea who David Bentley Hart is.

If you'd like more information on who the man is and his extensive connections within Orthodoxy (as I've seen both converts and cradle reference him), there was another discussion on the man last year - seen here in http://www.christianforums.com/thre...t-a-universalist.7879564/page-2#post-67503514 and https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/apocatastasis-the-heresy-that-never-was-2/

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If I heard it before, I'd forgotten it. But I tend to remember who to generally trust, and not pay much attention to the questionable ones. Still, good to know.

Something to keep in mind...


David Bently Hart's work centers on remembering that Christ is our Atonement - how far that atonement goes, of course, is another issue of debate all together and there are a myriad of differing perspectives on the issue which Hart noted in his own page - such as when he pointed out Kallistos Ware doing an excellent discussion on the issue in Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All" and ALSO shared thoughts of some of the Fathers such as St Isaac the Syrian who shared on God's Extensive Love...some of this connected to the issue of understanding that God isn't out to punish for its own sake as if it's the theme of "The Gods are Angry!!!" and he's of the mindset "You were BORN guilty!!!" (counter to Ezekiel 18 noting how he takes NO Pleasure in the death of the wicked and wishes Mercy). All of that is reflective of inclusivism, a la the end to C.S. Lewis The Last Battle, in which Francis essentially adopts Aslans statement that all good deeds are rendered in the name of Christ, regardless of whether the doer is a Christian (and that we can distinguish Christ's redemptive work from the acceptance of salvation...as the Lord redeemed the whole world and yet many will reject that saving work... the universality of Christ's redemptive work).

I John 2:1-2
2 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world

Romans 5:18-19

Therefore, as through one mans offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one mans righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one mans obedience many will be made righteous.
​

That said,

He has also spoken on a myriad of issues before, one of them being political issues:

• Anarcho-Monarchism | David Bentley Hart | First Things

Also, EO Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart actually did an excellent job discussing the extensiveness of the Church and variations within the Body of Christ - as seen best in one of the books I've recently gotten called "The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith" - amazing presentation on why the history of the faith is a GLOBAL faith

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeah the name is one I think I've heard others discuss (probably in here) but not anything I took an interest in. I don't know who he is.

The thing he has shared on a lot before has to do with the Councils. As I understand it, for him, speaking of the Ecumenical Councils isn't automatically the same (from what I've been taught) as assuming that all who adhere to them automatically interpret them the right way when it comes to how others are treated. Many who accepted the Council of Ephesus were not automatically correct in going out and beating up those who did not accept it because of their zeal for the Theotokos - nor were all in Alexandria correct when they went out destroying pagan temples because of their zeal for Christianity. The council may have been accurate but the actions of others are not necessarily so....as their actions can be an embarrassment.

But on Hart's Words, he did have some interesting thoughts when it came to the Fifth Council and the "embarrassment" of what resulted with others taking it past what it was meant to signify...as he said on the following:

Apocatastasis: The Heresy that Never Was​

When first presented with the universalist hope, many Orthodox and Roman Catholics immediately invoke the authority of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), citing the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas: “Apokatastasis has been dogmatically defined by the Church as heresy—see canon 1 … case closed.” Over the past two centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were ever officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Not only does Justinian not mention the apokatastasis debate in his letter to the council bishops, but the Acts of the council neither cite the fifteen anathemas nor record any discussion of them. Hence 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” (I:106).



Who then wrote the anathemas and when? Over the past century different hypotheses have been advanced, but historians appear to have settled on the following scenario, first proposed by Wilhelm Diekamp in 1899 and more recently advanced by Richard Price: the Emperor Justinian and his theological advisors composed the anathemas and then submitted them to the bishops for “approval” before the council formally convened on 5 May 553. We do not know how long before the council this meeting took place (hours? days? weeks? months?) nor who attended nor whether there was any actual discussion of the anathemas. One thing is clear—the Emperor wanted the anathemas cloaked with conciliar authority. A decade earlier he had denounced apokatastasis in an epistle to Patriarch Menas. Regardless of the origin of the 15 anathemas, we may confidently affirm that the Fifth Ecumenical Council did not formally publish them. The burden of historical proof now lies with those who maintain that the Council Fathers officially and authoritatively promulgated the anti-Origenist anathemas.

But let’s hypothetically assume that the Council did publish the fifteen anathemas. There would still remain the challenge of interpretation. Not all universalisms are the same. Just as there are both heretical and orthodox construals of, say, the atonement or the Incarnation, so there are heretical and orthodox construals of the universalist hope. The apokatastasis advanced by St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, differs in critical ways from the sixth-century theories against which the anathemas were directed. The latter appear to have belonged to an esoteric metaphysical system set loose from the Scriptures, as even a cursory reading reveals. The chasm between the two is enormous. Scholar Augustine Casiday suggests that we need to think of the anti-Origenist anathemas as the rejection of this system as a whole, each anathema denouncing one of its particulars (private email correspondence). Met Kallistos Ware made a similar point in 1998:

There is, however, considerable doubt whether these fifteen anathemas were in fact formally approved by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. They may have been endorsed by a lesser council, meeting in the early months of 553 shortly before the main council was convened, in which case they lack full ecumenical authority; yet, even so, the Fathers of the Fifth Council were well aware of these fifteen anathemas and had no intention of revoking or modifying them. Apart from that, however, the precise wording of the first anathema deserves to be carefully noted. It does not speak only about apocatastasis but links together two aspects of Origen’s theology: first, his speculations about the beginning, that is to say, about the preexistence of souls and the precosmic fall; second, his teaching about the end, about universal salvation and the ultimate reconciliation of all things. Origen’s eschatology is seen as following directly from his protology, and both are rejected together. …

Now, as we have noted, the first of the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas is directed not simply against Origen’s teaching concerning universal reconciliation, but against his total understanding of salvation history—against his theory of preexistent souls, of a precosmic fall and a final apocatastasis—seen as a single and undivided whole. Suppose, however, that we separate his eschatology from his protology; suppose that we abandon all speculations about the realm of eternal logikoi; suppose that we simply adhere to the standard Christian view whereby there is no preexistence of the soul, but each new person comes into being as an integral unity of soul and body, at or shortly after the moment of the conception of the embryo within the mother’s womb. In this way we could advance a doctrine of universal salvation—affirming this, not as a logical certainty (indeed, Origen never did that), but as a heartfelt aspiration, a visionary hope—which would avoid the circularity of Origen’s view and so would escape the condemnation of the anti-Origenist anathemas. (“Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All,” in The Inner Kingdom, pp. 199-200)​

Many scholars would now question Ware’s identification of the views of Origen with the views of the 6th-century Origenists. The renowned patristics scholar Brian E. Daly, for example, asserts that the denounced theses “represent a radicalized Evagrian Christology and cosmology, and a doctrine of apokatastasis that went far beyond the hopes of Origen or Gregory of Nyssa. They envisage not only a spherical, ethereal risen body, but the complete abolition of material reality in the world to come, and the ultimate absorption of all created spirits into an undifferentiated unity with the divine Logos, so that even the humanity and the Kingdom of Christ will come to an end” (The Hope of the Early Church, p. 190). But Ware’s key point stands: the sixth century condemnation of apokatastasis does not apply to construals similar to those of St Gregory of Nyssa or St Isaac the Syrian. Consider the first anathema: “If anyone advocates the mythical pre-existence of souls and the monstrous restoration that follows from this, let him be anathema.”

​

Note the intrinsic connection between the pre-existence of souls and the universal restoration: the latter necessarily flows from the former, as further explained in anathema fourteen, which speaks of the eschatological annihilation of hypostases and bodies and the restoration to a state of pure spirit, akin to the original state of pre-existence. But neither Gregory and Isaac advocate the pre-existence of souls. Their construals of the universalist hope are grounded solely upon God’s infinite love and the power of purgative suffering to bring enlightenment to the damned. The 15 anathemas, therefore, do not touch the biblical universalism of St Gregory of Nyssa, St Isaac the Syrian, or more recent exponents, such as Sergius Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. As J. W. Hanson writes in his classic, but dated, work Universalism: “The theory here condemned is not that of universal salvation, but the ‘fabulous pre-existence of souls, and the monstrous restitution that results from it'” (chap. 21).​

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think I begin to see now why certain of my FB friends (who I deeply respect) have at times criticized me sharply for sharing certain quotes or comments.

And there is SO MUCH depth and breadth to Orthodoxy that one cannot exhaust it even in a long lifetime - much less when one finds it so late as I have.

My head is spinning a little, GxG. And to be honest, this is also why I pay a relatively tiny bit of attention to "beginnings and endings" because there are simply too many suppositions we can't know the depth or sometimes even the truth of, so exploring that ground starts to become shaky - especially in the case of endings.

I sort of want to dive right in and discuss things in detail and ask questions, but at the same time I feel it would be unwise of me, and probably at best amount to no more than a distraction from more concrete spiritual pursuits.

If God grants me at least several more decades, then maybe I'll be ready by then. But these strike me as the kinds of things that right now are "too wonderful for me" to contemplate.

I am not even able to keep up with reading all the posts in CF in threads I participate in over the past couple of days. I may come back to this, but I think it's probably best if I don't go further than the basics.

Maybe I'm safer in simply hoping and praying for the salvation of all, attempting to see a Saint in everyone, and looking at myself as deeply needing to repent and leave it all at that.

Thank you GxG. I don't want to seem unappreciative. This is all MOST interesting. Just maybe not the best pursuit for me where I am. God bless you!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Btw, I am very much interested in the parts about the Councils and what has been said and what comes of it. It's just that I am also way behind in terms of history. But I'll probably read over this another time or two at least, God willing.

The thing he has shared on a lot before has to do with the Councils. As I understand it, for him, speaking of the Ecumenical Councils isn't automatically the same (from what I've been taught) as assuming that all who adhere to them automatically interpret them the right way when it comes to how others are treated. Many who accepted the Council of Ephesus were not automatically correct in going out and beating up those who did not accept it because of their zeal for the Theotokos - nor were all in Alexandria correct when they went out destroying pagan temples because of their zeal for Christianity. The council may have been accurate but the actions of others are not necessarily so....as their actions can be an embarrassment.

But on Hart's Words, he did have some interesting thoughts when it came to the Fifth Council and the "embarrassment" of what resulted with others taking it past what it was meant to signify...as he said on the following:



Apocatastasis: The Heresy that Never Was

When first presented with the universalist hope, many Orthodox and Roman Catholics immediately invoke the authority of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), citing the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas: “Apokatastasis has been dogmatically defined by the Church as heresy—see canon 1 … case closed.” Over the past two centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were ever officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Not only does Justinian not mention the apokatastasis debate in his letter to the council bishops, but the Acts of the council neither cite the fifteen anathemas nor record any discussion of them. Hence 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” (I:106).




Who then wrote the anathemas and when? Over the past century different hypotheses have been advanced, but historians appear to have settled on the following scenario, first proposed by Wilhelm Diekamp in 1899 and more recently advanced by Richard Price: the Emperor Justinian and his theological advisors composed the anathemas and then submitted them to the bishops for “approval” before the council formally convened on 5 May 553. We do not know how long before the council this meeting took place (hours? days? weeks? months?) nor who attended nor whether there was any actual discussion of the anathemas. One thing is clear—the Emperor wanted the anathemas cloaked with conciliar authority. A decade earlier he had denounced apokatastasis in an epistle to Patriarch Menas. Regardless of the origin of the 15 anathemas, we may confidently affirm that the Fifth Ecumenical Council did not formally publish them. The burden of historical proof now lies with those who maintain that the Council Fathers officially and authoritatively promulgated the anti-Origenist anathemas.

But let’s hypothetically assume that the Council did publish the fifteen anathemas. There would still remain the challenge of interpretation. Not all universalisms are the same. Just as there are both heretical and orthodox construals of, say, the atonement or the Incarnation, so there are heretical and orthodox construals of the universalist hope. The apokatastasis advanced by St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, differs in critical ways from the sixth-century theories against which the anathemas were directed. The latter appear to have belonged to an esoteric metaphysical system set loose from the Scriptures, as even a cursory reading reveals. The chasm between the two is enormous. Scholar Augustine Casiday suggests that we need to think of the anti-Origenist anathemas as the rejection of this system as a whole, each anathema denouncing one of its particulars (private email correspondence). Met Kallistos Ware made a similar point in 1998:

There is, however, considerable doubt whether these fifteen anathemas were in fact formally approved by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. They may have been endorsed by a lesser council, meeting in the early months of 553 shortly before the main council was convened, in which case they lack full ecumenical authority; yet, even so, the Fathers of the Fifth Council were well aware of these fifteen anathemas and had no intention of revoking or modifying them. Apart from that, however, the precise wording of the first anathema deserves to be carefully noted. It does not speak only about apocatastasis but links together two aspects of Origen’s theology: first, his speculations about the beginning, that is to say, about the preexistence of souls and the precosmic fall; second, his teaching about the end, about universal salvation and the ultimate reconciliation of all things. Origen’s eschatology is seen as following directly from his protology, and both are rejected together. …

Now, as we have noted, the first of the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas is directed not simply against Origen’s teaching concerning universal reconciliation, but against his total understanding of salvation history—against his theory of preexistent souls, of a precosmic fall and a final apocatastasis—seen as a single and undivided whole. Suppose, however, that we separate his eschatology from his protology; suppose that we abandon all speculations about the realm of eternal logikoi; suppose that we simply adhere to the standard Christian view whereby there is no preexistence of the soul, but each new person comes into being as an integral unity of soul and body, at or shortly after the moment of the conception of the embryo within the mother’s womb. In this way we could advance a doctrine of universal salvation—affirming this, not as a logical certainty (indeed, Origen never did that), but as a heartfelt aspiration, a visionary hope—which would avoid the circularity of Origen’s view and so would escape the condemnation of the anti-Origenist anathemas. (“Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All,” in The Inner Kingdom, pp. 199-200)​

Many scholars would now question Ware’s identification of the views of Origen with the views of the 6th-century Origenists. The renowned patristics scholar Brian E. Daly, for example, asserts that the denounced theses “represent a radicalized Evagrian Christology and cosmology, and a doctrine of apokatastasis that went far beyond the hopes of Origen or Gregory of Nyssa. They envisage not only a spherical, ethereal risen body, but the complete abolition of material reality in the world to come, and the ultimate absorption of all created spirits into an undifferentiated unity with the divine Logos, so that even the humanity and the Kingdom of Christ will come to an end” (The Hope of the Early Church, p. 190). But Ware’s key point stands: the sixth century condemnation of apokatastasis does not apply to construals similar to those of St Gregory of Nyssa or St Isaac the Syrian. Consider the first anathema: “If anyone advocates the mythical pre-existence of souls and the monstrous restoration that follows from this, let him be anathema.”

Note the intrinsic connection between the pre-existence of souls and the universal restoration: the latter necessarily flows from the former, as further explained in anathema fourteen, which speaks of the eschatological annihilation of hypostases and bodies and the restoration to a state of pure spirit, akin to the original state of pre-existence. But neither Gregory and Isaac advocate the pre-existence of souls. Their construals of the universalist hope are grounded solely upon God’s infinite love and the power of purgative suffering to bring enlightenment to the damned. The 15 anathemas, therefore, do not touch the biblical universalism of St Gregory of Nyssa, St Isaac the Syrian, or more recent exponents, such as Sergius Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. As J. W. Hanson writes in his classic, but dated, work Universalism: “The theory here condemned is not that of universal salvation, but the ‘fabulous pre-existence of souls, and the monstrous restitution that results from it'” (chap. 21).​