Eternal Damnation, Conditional Immortality, or Universal Reconciliation: A CF poll

[public hermit]

I'd have to dig through my readings again to show it, but where it is most explicit is within Maximus the Confessor. It mostly stems from differences between the ancients who primarily thought in platonic terms for issues like what a "substance" is and our modern conceptions being more atomistic. So I don't have someone saying its their opinion, it comes from actually reading the works. Someone worth reading on Gregory of Nyssa who shows that he didn't deny hell's eternality is Metropolitan Hierotheos.

Thank you; I appreciate your response. I won't ask you to dig through your readings. My understanding is that you are in seminary, and I know you probably have better things to do. I am not familiar with Maximus the Confessor (except for his distinction between the natural will and the gnomic will), so I will take your word for it; however, I am familiar with Gregory of Nyssa.

What I understand you saying is that God removes the evil will and what remains returns to God. I will quote some passages from Nyssa, all of which come from "On The Soul and the Resurrection," which show that he believes God will remove the evil from the will and, thereby, redeem the person, who then enters into communion with the blessed.

Moreover, as every being is capable of attracting its like, and humanity is, in a way, like God, as bearing within itself some resemblances to its Prototype, the soul is by a strict necessity attracted to the kindred Deity. In fact what belongs to God must by all means and at any cost be preserved for him.

Such I think is the plight of the soul as well, when the Divine force, for God's very love of man, drags that which belongs to Him from the ruins of the irrational and material. Not in hatred or revenge for the wicked life does God bring upon sinners those painful dispensations; He is only claiming and drawing to himself whatever to please him came into existence. But while He for a noble end is attracting the soul to Himself, the Foundation of all Blessedness, it is the occasion necessarily to the being do attracted of a state of torture. Just as those who refine gold from the dross which it contains not only to get this base alloy to melt in the fire, but are obliged to melt the pure gold along with the alloy, and then while this last is being consumed in the purgatorial fire, the soul that is welded to this evil must inevitably be in the fire too, until the spurious material alloy is consumed and annihilated by the Fire.

Then it is not punishment chiefly and principally that the Deity, as Judge, afflicts sinners with; but He operates, as your argument has shown, only to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of the blessed...In any and every case evil must be removed out of existence, so that, as we have said above, the absolutely nonexistent should cease to be at all. Since it is not in its nature that evil should exist outside the will, does it not follow that when it shall be that every will rests in God, evil will be reduced to complete annihilation, owing to being no receptacle for it?

There are a couple things to note here. Firstly, by necessity the soul is attracted to God who is its ultimate good, and God will "by all means and costs" redeem the good soul that God has created. Secondly, the process of purification is painful to the soul as it is being separated from the evil it to which it is wedded. This is not done out of punishment but out of love; nonetheless, the process is painful. Thirdly, God is not separating an evil will from the person, but separating evil from the will, which annihilates evil since it has no "receptacle." What is saved/redeemed in the Fire, which is none other than divine love, is the person with the will intact. To be clear, Nyssa held that all will be redeemed.

One last quote:
His end is one, and one only; it is this: when the complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last -some having at once in this life been cleansed from evil, others having afterwards in the necessary ages been healed by Fire...to offer to every one of us participation in the blessings which are in Him, which the Scripture tells us, "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," nor thought ever reached.

 

[public hermit]

If you are using an IPhone I'll tell you how to copy/paste.

I appreciate it. I am looking at books, which is why I can't copy and paste.

 

[Fervent]

Thank you; I appreciate your response. I won't ask you to dig through your readings. My understanding is that you are in seminary, and I know you probably have better things to do. I am not familiar with Maximus the Confessor (except for his distinction between the natural will and the gnomic will), so I will take your word for it; however, I am familiar with Gregory of Nyssa.

What I understand you saying is that God removes the evil will and what remains returns to God. I will quote some passage from Nyssa, all of which come from "On The Soul and the Resurrection," which show that he believes God will remove the evil from the will and, thereby, redeem the person, who then enters into communion with the blessed.

Moreover, as every being is capable of attracting its like, and humanity is, in a way, like God, as bearing within itself some resemblances to its Prototype, the soul is by a strict necessity attracted to the kindred Deity. In fact what belongs to God must by all means and at any cost be preserved for him.

Such I think is the plight of the soul as well, when the Divine force, for God's very love of man, drags that which belongs to Him from the ruins of the irrational and material. Not in hatred or revenge for the wicked life does God bring upon sinners those painful dispensations; He is only claiming and drawing to himself whatever to please him came into existence. But while He for a noble end is attracting the soul to Himself, the Foundation of all Blessedness, it is the occasion necessarily to the being do attracted of a state of torture. Just as those who refine gold from the dross which it contains not only to get this base alloy to melt in the fire, but are obliged to melt the pure gold along with the alloy, and then while this last is being consumed in the purgatorial fire, the soul that is welded to this evil must inevitably be in the fire too, until the spurious material alloy is consumed and annihilated by the Fire.

Then it is not punishment chiefly and principally that the Deity, as Judge, afflicts sinners with; but He operates, as your argument has shown, only to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of the blessed...In any and every case evil must be removed out of existence, so that, as we have said above, the absolutely nonexistent should cease to be at all. Since it is not in its nature that evil should exist outside the will, does it not follow that when it shall be that every will rests in God, evil will be reduced to complete annihilation, owing to being no receptacle for it?

There are a couple things to note here. Firstly, by necessity the soul is attracted to God who is its ultimate good, and God will "by all means and costs" redeem the good soul that God has created. Secondly, the process of purification is painful to the soul as it is being separated from the evil it to which it is wedded. This is not done out of punishment but out of love; nonetheless, the process is painful. Thirdly, God is not separating an evil will from the person, but separating evil from the will, which annihilates evil since it has no "receptacle." What is saved/redeemed in the Fire, which is none other than divine love, is the person with the will intact. To be clear, Nyssa held that all will be redeemed.

One last quote:
His end is one, and one only; it is this: when the complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last -some having at once in this life been cleansed from evil, others having afterwards in the necessary ages been healed by Fire...to offer to every one of us participation in the blessings which are in Him, which the Scripture tells us, "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," nor thought ever reached.

The problem with quotes such as these is, is that quotes from antiquity cannot be understood apart from their ancient context. As I said regarding Gregory of Nyssa, Metropolitan Hieretheos presents a thorough treatment to show that his statements that are regarded as endorsing universal salvation arise from misunderstanding the historic context and explains why he wasn't anathematized alongside Origen.

As for my being in seminary, I graduated earlier this year. Not that it means I have more time lol

 

[Der Alte]

I appreciate it. I am looking at books, which is why I can't copy and paste.

My bad. It doesn't work on printed text. But If you need to help copy/pasting on your iphone let me know. I just figured it out a few days ago myself.

 

[public hermit]

The problem with quotes such as these is, is that quotes from antiquity cannot be understood apart from their ancient context. As I said regarding Gregory of Nyssa, Metropolitan Hieretheos presents a thorough treatment to show that his statements that are regarded as endorsing universal salvation arise from misunderstanding the historic context and explains why he wasn't anathematized alongside Origen.

As for my being in seminary, I graduated earlier this year. Not that it means I have more time lol

Congratulations on graduating! I am sure you will be a blessing to whomever you serve.

No offense to Metropolitan Hieretheos, but I understand the ancient context, I understand ancient philosophy, and I understand Nyssa. I am sure Metropolitan Hieretheos has every reason to try to show what people have known for centuries, i.e. Nyssa believed in universal reconciliation.

 

[Fervent]

Congratulations on graduating! I am sure you will be a blessing to whomever you serve.

No offense to Metropolitan Hieretheos, but I understand the ancient context, I understand ancient philosophy, and I understand Nyssa. I am sure Metropolitan Hieretheos has every reason to try to show what people have known for centuries, i.e. Nyssa believed in universal reconciliation.

I'm surprised you're dismissive without even looking into what the argument is, and what sources he draws from. No one disputes that Nyssa believed in universal reconciliation, but what is being reconciled is not what moderns consider a human person but those wills that rest in God. Universal salvation places a requirement, either on God forcing men to complicity or worse in making human salvation compulsory upon God. The ancients recognized a distinction between Origenist apokatastasis and Gregory of Nyssa's apokatastasis which is why one received anathematization and the other didn't, and that distinction is often lost from a modern vantage point.

 

[public hermit]

Universal salvation places a requirement, either on God forcing men to complicity or worse in making human salvation compulsory upon God.

Nyssa is clear-God will use any means necessary to redeem what is God's own. God redeems the person, including the will. What God removes is evil from the will. Nyssa is not working with any mysterious anthropology. His understanding of the human person was common for his day.

You're right, I haven't seen his argument. It sounds like an apologetic to explain why Origen was condemned and not Nyssa, as you say. That argument is already suspect since Origen's condemnation is suspect. He's EO, right? He has an agenda to uphold the doctrine of the EO church, but you're right. I haven't looked at it.

 

[Fervent]

Nyssa is clear-God will use any means necessary to redeem what is God's own. God redeems the person, including the will. What God removes is evil from the will. Nyssa is not working with any mysterious anthropology. His understanding of the human person was common for his day.

You're right, I haven't seen his argument. It sounds like an apologetic to explain why Origen was condemned and not Nyssa, as you say. That argument is already suspect since Origen's condemnation is suspect. He's EO, right? He has an agenda to uphold the doctrine of the EO church, but you're right. I haven't looked at it.

It's not directly an apologetic to explain Origen's condemnation, but to show that Nyssa's views are in line with the orthodox view of hell(that is to say hell is not a place, per se, but how the will experiences God). I'd be curious to see where you find "any means necessary" in Nyssa, to include compulsion of the individual's will.

And I'm not suggesting Nyssa had an anthropology that was distinct from others in his day, simply that ancient anthropology was distinct from the modern day and allowed for a subtle distinction between his own teachings and those of the Origenists(though possibly not Origen himself).

There's nothing suspect about the anathematization of Origenist teachings, that's little more than a modern apologetic among universalists.

 

[public hermit]

It's not directly an apologetic to explain Origen's condemnation, but to show that Nyssa's views are in line with the orthodox view of hell(that is to say hell is not a place, per se, but how the will experiences God)

Yes, of course he has an agenda to show why Nyssa is acceptable for the EO. He is part of the institution. If he is arguing, as you say, that God removes the evil will, that is simply not the case, which is what I have been saying. Did I misunderstand what you were saying?
Again, (according to Nyssa) God removes evil from the will, while the will remains intact.

I'd be curious to see where you find "any means necessary" in Nyssa, to include compulsion of the individual's will.

I already posted it, but will do so again.

Moreover, as every being is capable of attracting its like, and humanity is, in a way, like God, as bearing within itself some resemblances to its Prototype, the soul is by a strict necessity attracted to the kindred Deity. In fact what belongs to God must by all means and at any cost be preserved for him.

"In fact what belongs to God (i.e. the soul) must by all means and at any cost be preserved for him.

Did you read what I posted?

 

[Fervent]

Yes, of course he has an agenda to show why Nyssa is acceptable for the EO. He is part of the institution. If he is arguing, as you say, that God removes the evil will, that is simply not the case, which is what I have been saying. Did I misunderstand what you were saying?
Again, (according to Nyssa) God removes evil from the will, while the will remains intact.

You have misunderstood, because it is not that the evil will is removed but that the will that is evil does not rest in God. Ancient anthropology saw a separation between nature and will, the two were not inseperable. Those wills that were by nature good went to rest in God, those that were by nature evil were themselves purged. All wills that rest in God are purified, but not all wills rest in God. Those that do not are purged while the human nature they were attached to returns to Christ.

I already posted it, but will do so again.


"In fact what belongs to God (i.e. the soul) must by all means and at any cost be preserved for him

That doesn't imply that God would compel the will of an individual towards Him, because our will only belongs to God if we give it to Him.

.

Did you read what I posted?

I did, and have many times. But as I said, taking a single section of an ancient writer's output is not sufficient to establish their position, and never can be.

 

[public hermit]

You have misunderstood, because it is not that the evil will is removed but that the will that is evil does not rest in God. Ancient anthropology saw a separation between nature and will, the two were not inseperable. Those wills that were by nature good went to rest in God, those that were by nature evil were themselves purged. All wills that rest in God are purified, but not all wills rest in God. Those that do not are purged while the human nature they were attached to returns to Christ.

That doesn't imply that God would compel the will of an individual towards Him, because our will only belongs to God if we give it to Him.

I did, and have many times. But as I said, taking a single section of an ancient writer's output is not sufficient to establish their position, and never can be.

Nyssa says all will rest in God. He doesn't mince his words, as I have shown. Feel free to read the whole treatise. I have and you will not find him saying otherwise. It would probably help to also read "On the Making of Man" to get a sense of his anthropology.

Here's what I see, at this point. I have used primary source material to establish my point. You have told me about someone's opinions, which is an approach you decried earlier, and then reject what I have shown because it's not enough. That's fine, but until you start giving me something more than what you heard from somebody else, I feel no compulsion to think my position is somehow in error. I'm not trying to be hard-headed, but this exchange is lopsided. I'm giving an argument using primary source material and your response is, "Nah, it's not enough because who knows?" I'm sorry, but your position is not compelling.

 

[Fervent]

Nyssa says all will rest in God. He doesn't mince his words, as I have shown. Feel free to read the whole treatise. I have and you will not find him saying otherwise. It would probably help to also read "On the Making of Man" to get a sense of his anthropology.

Here's what I see, at this point. I have used primary source material to establish my point. You have told me about someone's opinions, which is an approach you decried earlier, and then reject what I have shown because it's not enough. That's fine, but until you start giving me something more than what you heard from somebody else, I feel no compulsion to think my position is somehow in error. I'm not trying to be hard-headed, but this exchange is lopsided. I'm giving an argument using primary source material and your response is, "Nah, it's not enough because who knows?" I'm sorry, but your position is not compelling.

I've explained the issue with using material as you have, as you've provided one segment from a lifetime of work that is far removed from our current culture. What I am giving you is not Hierotheos' opinion, but what I have gleaned from reading primary sources which I found well expressed and thoroughly expounded by Hierotheos. But establishing the issues requires far more extensive work than a forum setting allows for/would be worth going through, which is why I defer to the already expounded works of Hierotheos rather than treading ground that is easily accessible. My goal is not to persuade you, simply to make it clear that even the most uncontroversial universalist is not definitevly universalist as moderns would have it for the benefit of those who are not convinced of UR but find the appeal to a historic theologian persuasive. My argument is not "who knows?" but that it is easy to be misled by small snippets especially when considering an ancient writer who is operating with different prevailing assumptions for what is commonly understood, and the modern UR message relies on an anachronistic reading of ancient writers such as Nyssa.

 

[public hermit]

I've explained the issue with using material as you have, as you've provided one segment from a lifetime of work that is far removed from our current culture. What I am giving you is not Hierotheos' opinion, but what I have gleaned from reading primary sources which I found well expressed and thoroughly expounded by Hierotheos. But establishing the issues requires far more extensive work than a forum setting allows for/would be worth going through, which is why I defer to the already expounded works of Hierotheos rather than treading ground that is easily accessible. My goal is not to persuade you, simply to make it clear that even the most uncontroversial universalist is not definitevly universalist as moderns would have it for the benefit of those who are not convinced of UR but find the appeal to a historic theologian persuasive. My argument is not "who knows?" but that it is easy to be misled by small snippets especially when considering an ancient writer who is operating with different prevailing assumptions for what is commonly understood, and the modern UR message relies on an anachronistic reading of ancient writers such as Nyssa.

Wonderful. Then you don't need me to keep blabbering away, which definitely suits me.

 

[Fervent]

Wonderful. Then you don't need me to keep blabbering away, which definitely suits me.

I do think it's noteworthy that your reading of Nyssa has him allowing God to do evil(any means necessary, right?), so long as every soul is saved.

 

[public hermit]

I do think it's noteworthy that your reading of Nyssa has him allowing God to do evil(any means necessary, right?), so long as every soul is saved.

You clearly aren't comprehending what he's saying, nor what I'm saying. But you are annoying me by misrepresenting what I'm saying. I guess that's your intention.

 

[Fervent]

You clearly aren't comprehending what he's saying, nor what I'm saying. But you are annoying me by misrepresenting what I'm saying. I guess that's your intention.

I hardly see how I've misrepresented what you've said(or what you intended to convey by highlighting the portion of Nyssa you highlighted) since I'm simply taking "by all means and at any cost" as meaning any means necessary, since you used it to rebut God compelling a will(an action I view as necessarily evil). If all means and any costs means all means, then it allows for evil.

 

[public hermit]

I hardly see how I've misrepresented what you've said(or what you intended to convey by highlighting the portion of Nyssa you highlighted) since I'm simply taking "by all means and at any cost" as meaning any means necessary, since you used it to rebut God compelling a will(an action I view as necessarily evil). If all means and any costs means all means, then it allows for evil.

The cost he is referring to is the suffering the soul experiences as it's being purged of evil by the fire of divine love. If you had read what I posted, or at least comprehended it, you wouldn't be misrepresenting what has been said. If you think divine love cleansing a soul is evil then there's nothing I can say tto change your mind. You might as well say grace transforming a soul is evil.

But you have already shown that you are going to believe what you want regardless of the words that are right before you. He says all will join the company of the blessed. You turn around and tell me he doesn't say that despite the fact I quoted his writing. I'm enjoying this conversation for the same reason I enjoy hitting myself in the head with a hammer: stopping.

 

[Fervent]

The cost he is referring to is the suffering the soul experiences as it's being purged of evil by the fire of divine love. If you had read what I posted, or at least comprehended it, you wouldn't be misrepresenting what has been said. If you think divine love cleansing a soul is evil then there's nothing I can say tto change your mind. You might as well say grace transforming a soul is evil.

But you have already shown that you are going to believe what you want regardless of the words that are right before you. He says all will join the company of the blessed. You turn around and tell me he doesn't say that despite the fact I quoted his writing. I'm enjoying this conversation for the same reason I enjoy hitting myself in the head with a hammer: stopping.

It's not the cost that I am concerned with, but you knew that. So why did you sidestep "all means," since that is the relevant portion to the question of God forcing Himself on a person.

 

[public hermit]

It's not the cost that I am concerned with, but you knew that. So why did you sidestep "all means," since that is the relevant portion to the question of God forcing Himself on a person.

I see your error now. You think the soul is its own lord and for God to take back what belongs to God is an evil. That is exacty the kind of irrationality that needs to be purged. When the soul is properly oriented, it by necessity seeks the good for which it is created, i.e. the Prototype of the image it bears, as Nyssa says. You are mistaken in thinking the soul is being wronged by being purged of the irrationality that keeps it from recognizing its proper end. All of this is in the quotes I gave you. You added the error that the soul was being wronged. God is not forcing God's self on the soul. God is purging the soul so it desires it's proper good.

 

[Fervent]

I see your error now. You think the soul is its own lord and for God to take back what belongs to God is an evil. That is exacty the kind of irrationality that needs to be purged. When the soul is properly oriented, it by necessity seeks the good for which it is created, i.e. the Prototype of the image it bears, as Nyssa says. You are mistaken in thinking the soul is being wronged by being purged of the irrationality that keeps it from recognizing its proper end. All of this is in the quotes I gave you. You added the error that the soul was being wronged. God is not forcing God's self on the soul. God is purging the soul so it desires it's proper good.

That's some convolution, "it wasn't () bcause it was what she really wanted."