Universal Salvation in Orthodoxy?

[salve]

I recently read this on the web and I was wondering if Orthodoxy teaches Universal Salvation? I thought this was condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council but I see it often on Orthodox Websites and Forum and I was just curious what your thoughts were on the subject.

‘WHAT IS HELL?’

‘Fathers and teachers! I ask: What is Hell? I answer: Suffering on account of the impossibility to love any longer’. These are the words of Elder Zosima, Dostoyevsky’s celebrated monk in The Brothers Karamazov.

Why Hell? many people ask. Why does God condemn people to eternal damnation? How can the image of God the Judge be reconciled with the New Testament message of God as love? St Isaac the Syrian answers these questions in the following way: there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy. The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it.

It is therefore not God Who mercilessly prepares torments for a person, but rather the person himself who chooses evil and then suffers from its consequences. There are people who deliberately refuse to follow the way of love, who do evil and harm to their neighbours: these are the ones who will be unable to reconcile themselves with the Supreme Love when they encounter it face to face. Someone who is outside of love during his earthly life will not find a way to be inside it when he departs from the body. He will find himself in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’ (Ps.23:4), ‘the darkness’ and ‘the land of forgetfulness’ (Ps.88:12), of which the psalms speak. Jesus called this place, or rather this condition of the soul after death, ‘the outer darkness’ (Matt.22:13) and ‘the Hell of fire’ (Matt.5:22).

One should note that the notion of Hell has been distorted by the coarse and material images in which it was clothed in Western medieval literature. One recalls Dante with his detailed description of the torments and punishment which sinners undergo. Christian eschatology should be liberated from this imagery: the latter reflects a Catholic medieval approach to the Novissima with its ‘pedagogy of fear’ and its emphasis on the necessity of satisfaction and punishment. Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel depicts Christ hurling into the abyss all those who dared to oppose Him. ‘This, to be sure, is not how I see Christ’, says Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov). ‘...Christ, naturally, must be in the centre, but a different Christ more in keeping with the revelation that we have of Him: Christ immensely powerful with the power of unassuming love’. If God is love, He must be full of love even at the moment of the Last Judgment, even when He pronounces His sentence and condemns one to death.

For an Orthodox Christian, notions of Hell and eternal torments are inseparably linked with the mystery that is disclosed in the liturgical services of Holy Week and Easter, the mystery of Christ’s descent into Hell and His liberation of those who were held there under the tyranny of evil and death. The Church teaches that, after His death on the Cross, Christ descended into the abyss in order to annihilate Hell and death, and destroy the horrendous kingdom of the Devil. Just as Christ had sanctified the Jordan, which was filled with human sin, by descending into its waters, by descending into Hell He illumined it entirely with the light of His presence. Unable to tolerate this holy invasion, Hell surrendered: ‘Today Hell groans and cries aloud: It had been better for me, had I not accepted Mary’s Son, for He has come to me and destroyed my power; He has shattered the gates of brass, and as God He has raised up the souls that once I held’... In the words of St John Chrysostom, ‘Hell was embittered when it met Thee face to face below. It was embittered, for it was rendered void. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was despoiled. It was embittered, for it was fettered’. This does not mean that in the wake of Christ’s descent into it, Hell no longer exists. It does exist but is already sentenced to death. my source

Thanks Salve.

 

[Jebediah]

Not exactly. We just pray for everyone, with the hope that all may be saved, and the belief that they may be so. Have you heard our litanies? We pray for everyone, and even pray for the souls in hell at Pentecost. Since we believe in intercessory prayer, and have whole armies of full time prayer warriors (monks, nuns, etc) and lots of strong part time prayer warriors in the clergy and laity, we hope that literally there will be no one in hell in the end. At least, I hope that . As to the condemnation of universalism...it was Origen's teachings which involved an absolute universal salvation, pre-existent souls, and no action of free will in salvation (we would be saved without prayer or anything else).

Bishop Kallistos Ware has an article on this in "The Inner Kingdom" that is very good.

 

[choirfiend]

No, this has nothing to do with Universal Salvation.

What it does expound upon is the Orthodox understanding of a loving God and what heaven and hell are. (PS. The article also is talking about Hades/Sheol, which is something different than Hell...Too bad its usually equated in most English translations of the Scriptures).

As the article states, hell is not a place God created to throw people. God desires that all men should live. A Loving God (or the One who IS Love) does not hand out eternal torment.

In the Orthodox understanding, Hell is self-made. God is all Love. For those who hate God and His Love, the presence of God is torment. Just like if you really hated, say, your third grade teacher, even if s/he loved you, being in their presence is intolerable, and made even more so the more they try to love you, be with you, serve you, etc. For those who do not repent and hate God, (in heart and actions) the all-consuming fire of God will not be warming, cheering, enlightening; it will be tormenting, roasting, anguish.

This is not because God torments--it is based on one's response to God, who is changeless.

There's lots more out there on this idea, better and more fully said than I just explained it. Maybe someone can point you to a resource.

That said, the article is not dealing with Universal Salvation (which might be a hope of some Orthodox, but is not a doctrine and the idea that God HAS to "save" everyone is anathema; we don't believe in predestination and we DO believe in the free will to reject or accept God.). It IS dealing with the fact that the possibility of salvation is open to all men, and it is dealing with Christ defeating Hades and death for all men. Those who wish to embrace life are now able to do so because of Christ.

 

[salve]

Thanks a lot for your thoughts.

God Bless salve.

 

[Akathist]

I am a bit confused regarding the coment that the 5th Ecumenical Council had anything to do with condemnation of Universal Salvation.

We have some very learned members here in TAW, could someone enlighten me?

Where was this addressed in this council?

I thought that council addressed Nestorianism and the Monophyte heresy's.

Is there a different coucil taht addressed Universal Salvation? (I ask because it was my understanding that no council has addressed this issue.)

 

[salve]

I am a bit confused regarding the coment that the 5th Ecumenical Council had anything to do with condemnation of Universal Salvation.

We have some very learned members here in TAW, could someone enlighten me?

Where was this addressed in this council?

I thought that council addressed Nestorianism and the Monophyte heresy's.

Is there a different coucil taht addressed Universal Salvation? (I ask because it was my understanding that no council has addressed this issue.)

Salve!

The anathamas of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople held in 553. From "The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian against Origen":

IX. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (apokatastasis) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

 

[Akathist]

Salve!

The anathamas of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople held in 553. From "The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian against Origen":

IX. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (apokatastasis) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

Thank you. I must have read the OP wrong, I saw 5th, not 2nd and when I went to research, I only went looking for the 5th. I am still learning the content of the counsils and have to look things up a great deal.

I am very glad to have this post to help me as I study.

 

[salve]

Thank you. I must have read the OP wrong, I saw 5th, not 2nd and when I went to research, I only went looking for the 5th. I am still learning the content of the counsils and have to look things up a great deal.

I am very glad to have this post to help me as I study.

Salve!

Well the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople 'was' the 5th Ecumencial Council in toto.

 

[Akathist]

Salve,

No, the Second Ecumenical Counsel is the Second Ecumenical Counsel.

We are EO here. I don't know what your faith is, but for EO's, the Second Ecumenical Counsel is the Second one.

An Ecumencial Counsel is not the only counsel that can be called. Ecumenical Councils are councils in which ALL of the Patriarchs gather to pray and through the working of the Holy Spirit to set things right for the whole Church.

There are smaller councils to deal with local problems with the growth of heresy or other issues. They are not Ecumenical in that they do not involve all of the Patriarchs. Usually they involve a visiting Patriarch from another Jurisdiction but that does not make them Ecumenical. To have that classification, all Patriarchs would be involved. Ecumenical Counsels have primarily been called to address the widespread growth of heresy. (I think they have only been called to address widespread growth of heresy: that is heresy effecting several jurisdictions.)

(I welcome the correction of more educated EO members as I am still learning about this subject. Detailed study of the Councils was not a part of my catechism, though I did briefly study each.)

 

[choirfiend]

He is saying that Constantinople II (the 5th ecumenical council) was the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. See?

 

[Akathist]

Thanks choirfiend, I guess I never really cared where the councils were held so never considered that was what he was saying.

I still could not find the anethema's quoted in my research of the 5th EC. I could not even see a reference to Universal Salvation (or this idea using different terms.)

That does not mean they are not there. It probably means I do not know where to find them.

 

[Oblio]

I think it is best to call the ECs by their sequence among all, rather than within a particular location, unless of course it is needed to clarify a point. JMHO, YMMV.

 

[ThePilgrim]

Universal salvation has been condemned, not only by this council, but by numerous saints (See St John Climacus' "The Ladder", among others).

That doesn't mean that there are people that we can't pray for.

But to say that all *will* be saved is to deny free will. The choice is real, not imaginary.

Grace and peace,
John

 

[Akathist]

Universal salvation has been condemned, not only by this council, but by numerous saints (See St John Climacus' "The Ladder", among others).

That doesn't mean that there are people that we can't pray for.

But to say that all *will* be saved is to deny free will. The choice is real, not imaginary.

Grace and peace,
John

That puts a piece in place in my puzzle about those anethema's.

The anethema about the impious man is for an unrepentant man.

Ok, now I get it. Thanks.

 

[Grigorii]

I am a bit confused regarding the coment that the 5th Ecumenical Council had anything to do with condemnation of Universal Salvation.

We just covered this topic in class the other day. The professor suggested that Universalism is not necessarily condemned as a heresy. The Universalism of St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, is still a viable option. He also told us that the general weight of Tradition is against Universalism. Which means that the majority in the Church do not accept this doctrine. But in and of itself, I would say, this is not conclusive. Between 325 and 381 Arianism and homoiousianism were the majority position. The Nicene Faith was a minority position. The professor ended on the note that Universal Salvation is not necessarily heretical, but it is not representative of the consensus Orthodox teaching either.

Where was this addressed in this council?

It wasn't addressed by this particular council. It's been the subject of Local Councils, for example the one in Alexandria where Bishop Demetrius had his former catechist Origen condemned. It was also used to condemn and ultimately depose St. John Chrysostom at a Council directed by St. Theophilus of Alexandria.

I thought that council addressed Nestorianism and the Monophyte heresy's.

It dealt more specifically with Monophysitism, and restored two Nestorians to communion (Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, later condemned at the 6th Ec. Council). What it did not do, is discuss Universal Salvation nor even Origenism in general. The 15 anathemas against Origenism are from the hand of Emperor Justunian. They were not endorsed by the 5th Council nor voted upon. They were, however, included in the Acts of the Council at a later time. The 11th genuine anathema features Origen's name, but this too is of uncertain pedigree. Origen's name does not fit the category of heretics mentioned, and the position of his name breaks the chronological order. This could indicate that the anathema was 'doctered up' to get an official condemnation on Origen's name.

Given the trouble that extreme Origenism was causing, and given the increasingly bad reputation of Origen, as well as Justinian's profound dislike of Origen, it is (I believe) very much possible that measures were taken to put Origenism down. Forgering documents was not necessarily a problem to achieve ones goal. The goal sometimes sanctified the means. It is not even necessarily perceived as forgery at the time, it is a complicated matter which is not sufficiently studied (yet).

Is there a different coucil taht addressed Universal Salvation? (I ask because it was my understanding that no council has addressed this issue.)

Yes, there were several Local Councils that addressed it, and condemned it. But exactly what was condemned is not easy to determine. In general it is advisable to follow Bishop Kallistos' assessment that Universal Salvation is possible when free-will is preserved. Once it leads to denial of free-will you've crossed over into heresy.

Grigorii

 

[Akathist]

The professor ended on the note that Universal Salvation is not necessarily heretical, but it is not representative of the consensus Orthodox teaching either.

This is exactly what I have been taught myself, though I am only a layperson, not in a formal class. It is the position I take. On this subject, I sit on the fense and say that I do not need to know how God has the after life set up. I need to focus on my own theosis and in sharing my faith as clearly as I can.

thornygrace

 

[salve]

Salve!

Would any of you agree with what I found worthy of note in Dogmatic Orthodox Theology by Fr. Michael Pomazansky and his comments on Dogma and Canons:

For guidance in questions of faith, for the correct understanding of Sacred Scripture, and in order to distinguish the authentic Tradition of the Church from false teachings, we appeal to the works of the holy Fathers of the Church, acknowledging that the unanimous agreement of all the Fathers and teachers of the Churchin teaching of the Faith is an undubted sign of truth.

He later speaks on private opinions of the holy Fathers of the Church, like those of Origen, Clement of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nyssa (in particular):

In theology, attention is also given to certain private opinions (theologoumena) of the holy Fathers or teachers of the Church on questions which have not been precisely defined and accepted by the whole Church. However, these opinions are not to be confused with dogmas, in the precise meaning of the word. There are some private opinions of certain Fathers and teachers which are not recognized as being in agreement with the general catholic faith of the Church, and are not accepted as a guide to faith.

As an example of such "private opinions," one may take the mistaken opinion of St. Gregory of Nyssa that hell is not everlasting and that all - including demons - are to be saved in the end. This opinion was rejected decisively at the Fifth ecumenical Council as contradicting the Church's "catholic consciousness," but St. Gregory himself is still accepted as a saint and a Holy Father in the Orthodox Church and his other teachings are not questioned.

What are your thoughts? Was the 5th Ecumenical Council decisive in it's opinion of 'universalism' or is it that this heretical view is coming back into vogue?

For my opinion, I'd have to say that these appear, on first blush, to be in stark opposition to the truth revealed by our Lord and Savior:

He passed through towns and villages, teaching as he went and making his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, "Lord, will only a few people be saved?" He answered them, "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough. After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying, 'Lord, open the door for us.' He will say to you in reply, "I do not know where you are from.' And you will say, 'We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets.' Then he will say to you, 'I do not know where you are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers!' And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out. And people will come from the east and the west and the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last." - Luke 22-30

Sobering to say the least...

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you? And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer then, “Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” - Matthew 25:31-46

If the 'eternal punishment' outlined by our Lord is temporary then the 'eternal life' must also be temporary also as to interpret it any other way would fail to be consistent. I believe such an interpretation is no a true grasp of Christ’s Gospel and thus must be understood to be an error of ‘wishful thinking’ on the part of our early Church Fathers who grasped for ‘universal salvation’ through the ‘universal justification’. I do not hold that such ‘must’ be understood as a ‘demonic’ influence, as some might assert, but I do hold that such is an error in understanding ‘fully’ the Revelation of God through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

 

[Akathist]

As stated above, personal opinions on this subject is allowed within Orthodoxy, at least to a degree.

I can not think of how else to answer your question other than to repeat this fact.

 

[Grigorii]

Fr. Sergius Bulgakov writes:

In Christian eschatology the question is always present of those sent into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. From most ancient times doubts have existed as to the eternal duration of these torments; they are sometimes viewed as a provisional pedagogic method of influencing the soul, and a final restoration is hoped for. From earliest times there have been two tendencies in eschatology: the rigorist affirms that the suffering is eternal, definitive and without end; the other, which Augustine ironically calls the "pitiful" ("misericordes"), denies that eternity of punishment and the persistence of evil in creation, and proclaims the final victory of the Kingdom of God, when "God shall be all in all."

The doctrine of the restoration is not only that of Origen, of whom Orthodoxy is doubtful because of certain of his opinions, but also of St. Gregory of Nyssa, glorified by the Church as Doctor, and his disciples. It has hitherto been thought that the doctrine of Origen was condemend at the fifth Ecumenical Council, but recent historical studies do not permit us to affirm this. As to the doctrines of St. Gregory, developed much later, and free from Origen's theories on the preexistence of souls, they have never been condemned. Consequently they have the right to be quoted in the Church, at least as theological opinions ("theologoumena").

It is true that the prevailing opinion among many Orthodox dogmatic manuels does not go as far as the idea of "restoration," sometimes even expressing ideas near to the rigor of Catholicism. On the other hand, certain thinkers have professed and still profess ideas influenced by the doctrine of St. Gregory of Nyssa, or, in any case, more complex than the ordinary rigorist view. It may thus be foreseen that this question will be restudied many times, and that it will eventually be made clear in new light sent to the Church by the Holy Spirit. In any case. no rigorist view can take from us the hope afforded in the triumphant words of St. Paul: "God has shut all men up in rebellion, that He might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom. 11, 32-33)."

(Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, ch. 16; emphasis mine)

Grigorii

 

[salve]

Fr. Sergius Bulgakov writes:

In Christian eschatology the question is always present of those sent into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. From most ancient times doubts have existed as to the eternal duration of these torments; they are sometimes viewed as a provisional pedagogic method of influencing the soul, and a final restoration is hoped for. From earliest times there have been two tendencies in eschatology: the rigorist affirms that the suffering is eternal, definitive and without end; the other, which Augustine ironically calls the "pitiful" ("misericordes"), denies that eternity of punishment and the persistence of evil in creation, and proclaims the final victory of the Kingdom of God, when "God shall be all in all."

The doctrine of the restoration is not only that of Origen, of whom Orthodoxy is doubtful because of certain of his opinions, but also of St. Gregory of Nyssa, glorified by the Church as Doctor, and his disciples. It has hitherto been thought that the doctrine of Origen was condemend at the fifth Ecumenical Council, but recent historical studies do not permit us to affirm this. As to the doctrines of St. Gregory, developed much later, and free from Origen's theories on the preexistence of souls, they have never been condemned. Consequently they have the right to be quoted in the Church, at least as theological opinions ("theologoumena").

It is true that the prevailing opinion among many Orthodox dogmatic manuels does not go as far as the idea of "restoration," sometimes even expressing ideas near to the rigor of Catholicism. On the other hand, certain thinkers have professed and still profess ideas influenced by the doctrine of St. Gregory of Nyssa, or, in any case, more complex than the ordinary rigorist view. It may thus be foreseen that this question will be restudied many times, and that it will eventually be made clear in new light sent to the Church by the Holy Spirit. In any case. no rigorist view can take from us the hope afforded in the triumphant words of St. Paul: "God has shut all men up in rebellion, that He might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom. 11, 32-33)."

(Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, ch. 16; emphasis mine)

Grigorii

Salve!

You appear to be attempting 'guilt by association' with your assertion that this position is somehow 'Roman Catholic' in nature. I'm curious would you catagorize Jesus as a 'rigorist'? How about the Apostle John? When I reflect on some of this stuff I remember verses like our Apostle Paul who asked the Corinthians:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of GOD?" - I Corinthians 6:9.

Throughout the Bible 'eternal punishment' is mentioned; how do you reconcile the contradictions such opinions "theologoumena" have with His testimony?

PS: you mentioned that you've been studying this topic recently... What Seminary are you currently attending?

Thanks for all the info.