What is Hopeful Universalism?

[Light of the East]

The same ol', lame ol,' empty, meaningless accusations "paganism,""Roman law," "western" this,"Tertullian."," Latin" that, yada, yada, yada. I have already asked. No answer! Show me something specific in any of my posts, which can be directly attributed to any of those accusations, rather than scripture. You have NOT done so because you can't. Just keep on mud slinging.
….. Some people claim that “αιων/aion//αιωνιος/aionios never mean eternity/eternal,” because a few times they refer to something which is not eternal e.g. “world.”
However, neither word is ever defined/described, by adjectives or descriptive phrases, as meaning a period less than eternal, as in the following NT verses.

John 3:15​

(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.​

John 3:16​

(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life. ​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” twice. By definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

John 10:28​

(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. ​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand”, and “never perish.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite age,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’/never perish” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
Also "aionios" is an adjective, "age" is a noun. An adjective cannot be translated as a noun.
Show me some of your accusations in these 3 verses.

Nice dodge. Would you like to answer my scriptures now, or are they too plain that God's plan is to save all?

 

[Michie]

Horse feathers! You are telling me that St. Gregory of Nyssa, who was called "The Father of the Fathers" was unorthodox? That the Capadocian Fathers, Gregory the Great, and other saints of the Church were unorthodox?

Gregory of Nyssa Is Not a Universalist: An Introduction

People so universally and consistently assume Gregory of Nyssa is a universalist, it unsettles the faith of many. For some, it encourages their authoritatively condemned heresy. For others, it make…

orthodoxchristiantheology.com

St. Gregory of Nyssa

March 9, Saint

catholic.net

Were the Church Fathers Universalists? - Credo Magazine

By Paul Helm-- I’ve read more than once the claim that most early Christians were universalists. And this is occasionally supported by the further opinion that several early (first six centuries) theological schools were universalist in their teaching. This seems implausible to me. However, I’m...

credomag.com

 

[JSRG]

Horse feathers! You are telling me that St. Gregory of Nyssa, who was called "The Father of the Fathers" was unorthodox? That the Capadocian Fathers, Gregory the Great, and other saints of the Church were unorthodox?

Can you identify your source or reasoning for Gregory the Great being a universalist? Such a claim seems very odd based on what I know of his writings, and a search online turns up no one claiming he was. The other ones you cite are disputed as to whether they were universalists or not, but Gregory the Great I have never before seen given that label.

 

[Light of the East]

Can you identify your source or reasoning for Gregory the Great being a universalist? Such a claim seems very odd based on what I know of his writings, and a search online turns up no one claiming he was. The other ones you cite are disputed as to whether they were universalists or not, but Gregory the Great I have never before seen given that label.

I may have him mixed up with another Gregory who is an Early Father of the Church.

 

[Light of the East]

Gregory of Nyssa Is Not a Universalist: An Introduction

People so universally and consistently assume Gregory of Nyssa is a universalist, it unsettles the faith of many. For some, it encourages their authoritatively condemned heresy. For others, it make…

orthodoxchristiantheology.com

Craig Truglia doesn't know what he is talking about. He is a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy, and like so many converts, he has brought some Western baggage, like eternal hell, into the Orthodox faith. I don't consider him to be either a reliable or unprejudiced source on this issue.

St. Gregory of Nyssa

March 9, Saint

catholic.net

Hahahahaha!!! Thanks for proving my point:

QUOTE:
Universalism

Gregory seems to have believed in the universal salvation of all human beings. Gregory argues that when Paul says that God will be "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28), this means that though some may need long time of purification, eventually "no being will remain outside the number of the saved" and that "no being created by God will fall outside the Kingdom of God". Gregory also described God's work this way: "His [God's] 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 periods been healed by the Fire, others having in their life here been unconscious equally of good and of evil—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." That this is what Gregory believed and taught is affirmed by most scholars.

Were the Church Fathers Universalists? - Credo Magazine

By Paul Helm-- I’ve read more than once the claim that most early Christians were universalists. And this is occasionally supported by the further opinion that several early (first six centuries) theological schools were universalist in their teaching. This seems implausible to me. However, I’m...

credomag.com

 

[Michie]

Haha. Do your research. This does not prove your point at all. Read. Scripture. In. Context! Look at the History I’d the Church from the beginning. Universalism is heresy. It’s one thing to hope. Another to teach against Scripture and the teaching of the Savior. There is a wide and narrow road as He said. Quit taking the easy way out. You claim to be Orthodox. You are even going against the teachings of your Church. Stop trying to get a scratch for your itching ears.

 

[Light of the East]

Were the Church Fathers Universalists? - Credo Magazine

By Paul Helm-- I’ve read more than once the claim that most early Christians were universalists. And this is occasionally supported by the further opinion that several early (first six centuries) theological schools were universalist in their teaching. This seems implausible to me. However, I’m...

credomag.com

This piece is a piece of trash. The guy not only doesn't know what he is talking about, he twists and tortures the quotes of the Fathers to make them say what he wishes them to say. Example:

Ignatius​

‘Regarding the rest of mankind, you should pray for them unceasingly, for we can always hope that repentance may enable them to find their way to God’. 64 Where does this say anything about eternal fire? This is called "reading into the text" and it seems to be a common practice among hellists?

’…..how much more when a man’s subversive doctrines defile the God-given Faith for which Jesus Christ was crucified. Such a wretch in his uncleanness is bound for the unquenchable fire, and so is anyone else who gives him a hearing.’ 65 Since when does unquenchable mean eternal?

‘….the Cross which so greatly offends the unbelievers, but is salvation and eternal life to us’ 65-6 Again, this say nothing about eternal fire, only about eternal life. Stop reading into the text.

‘To profess any other name than that is to be lost to God….’72 And this means eternal hell? Maybe the author forgot that God is the woman who sweeps until she finds the one lost coin and the shepherd who leaves the 99 to find the 1 lost sheep. Sheeesh!

‘Flee for your very life from these men; they are poisonous growths with a deadly fruit, and one taste of it is speedily fatal.’ 81 Again, you are assuming this means eternal hell

‘His passion was no unreal illusion, as some skeptics aver who are all unreality themselves. The fate of those wretches will match their unbelief, for one day they will similarly become phantoms without substance themselves.’101 Nothing here says eternal hell. Reading into the text once again.

‘For let nobody be under any delusion; there is judgment in store even for the hosts of heaven, the very angels in glory, the visible and invisible powers themselves, if they have no faith in the blood of Christ’.102 Yes, there is judgment. And judgment must be just. God in the Bible taught us lex talionis - that is, the punishment fits the offense and does not exceed it. There is no sin which deserves eternal burning torture.

The same questions can be raised about the alleged positions of the theological schools of the Patristic period. How do they treat those New Testament routinely appealed to by universalists? Isn’t it extremely odd that a controversially-minded writer such as Augustine, writing in the fifth century, did not spot any such deviancy of the theological schools of his day or of the past from what he, at least, regarded as Christian orthodoxy, particularism and a clear teaching regarding heaven and hell? Apparently, the author has not read the quote from Augustine in which Augustine admitted that there were a "great mass" of Christians who believed in and taught Universal Salvation. Not a few. A "great mass." Augustine called them the "misericordia" or "the tender-hearted ones."

 

[Michie]

Gregory of Nyssa Is Not a Universalist: An Introduction

People so universally and consistently assume Gregory of Nyssa is a universalist, it unsettles the faith of many. For some, it encourages their authoritatively condemned heresy. For others, it make…

orthodoxchristiantheology.com

 

[Light of the East]

Haha. Do your research. This does not prove your point at all.

I can't deal with a closed mind. If you read that which was in bold and don't see that statements like eventually "no being will remain outside the number of the saved" and that "no being created by God will fall outside the Kingdom of God" are overwhelmingly universalist, then I can't help you.

 

[Michie]

This piece is a piece of trash. The guy not only doesn't know what he is talking about, he twists and tortures the quotes of the Fathers to make them say what he wishes them to say. Example:

Ignatius​

The same questions can be raised about the alleged positions of the theological schools of the Patristic period. How do they treat those New Testament routinely appealed to by universalists? Isn’t it extremely odd that a controversially-minded writer such as Augustine, writing in the fifth century, did not spot any such deviancy of the theological schools of his day or of the past from what he, at least, regarded as Christian orthodoxy, particularism and a clear teaching regarding heaven and hell? Apparently, the author has not read the quote from Augustine in which Augustine admitted that there were a "great mass" of Christians who believed in and taught Universal Salvation. Not a few. A "great mass." Augustine called them the "misericordia" or "the tender-hearted ones."

You are hilarious. I could say more but it would be against the rules. Haha! Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Michie]

I can't deal with a closed mind. If you read that which was in bold and don't see that statements like eventually "no being will remain outside the number of the saved" and that "no being created by God will fall outside the Kingdom of God" are overwhelmingly universalist, then I can't help you.

I never asked for your faux help.

 

[Der Alte]

You have a terrible habit of reading into the scriptures what you wish to see. Jeremiah simply says that God will destroy them. Doesn't mention eternal hell at all. This could just as easily mean earthly destruction without necessarily implying eternal hell, especially since the Jewish understanding of Sheol was not an eternal fire of torment.

Romans doesn't mention eternal hell at all. Again, you are reading into the text what you wish to see.

As for Matthew 7, I believe I addressed this several posts ago and you blew off my answer. Nonetheless, I will give it to you again. Matthew is the Gospel to the Jews in specific. Therefore, any warning which is in this Gospel is pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, especially in Matthew 23-25, in which Christ gives a long discourse in response to the question of the disciples as to when the Temple will be torn down.

The Kingdom of Heaven is a phrase that only appears in the Jewish Gospel of Matthew. It is not the same as the eternal Kingdom of God. To understand it correctly, you must think like a first century Jew. For the Jew of the first century, the Kingdom of Heaven was national Israel and Heaven itself in this context was the Temple, where the presence of God was in the Holiest of All.

Now . . . since you are fond of throwing around scriptures, I have a few for you:

1Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Colossians 1:20
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

2 Corinthians 5:14
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

When I was a fine little Fundamentalist Baptist, I was taught that you cannot have contradictions in the Bible. If you saw what you thought was a contradiction, then you had to go back and restudy to resolve the problem. Your eternal, burning hell, which comes from horrible mistranslations of the scriptures from Greek to Latin, as well as not understand to whom Jesus was speaking and what He was speaking of (i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem - which is the place where the worm dieth not and the fire is unquenchable) creates a massive conflict with these verses.

You also fail to recognize the influence of paganism and Roman law thinking (i.e. crime and punishment) as influencing their thoughts about God and how He deals with people. It is the Western variety of Christianity that is consumed with God punishing people. In the East, we see Him as the merciful God who alone loves mankind and seeks to heal us. Thus, the Eucharist was called "the medicine of immortality" by the Early Church. If you check your sources, you will see that a majority of the hell-believers, such as Tertullian, were deeply Latin influenced.

Well, you have a good night!

Does All Really Mean All?

As I continue to read arguments both pro and con regarding Patristic Universalism, I continue to find new discussions which bring up new arguments on the subject, both pro and con. One of th…

http4281.wordpress.com

Nothing but your unsupported opinion of what you think the vss. "really mean."
For example "the Kingdom of Heaven was national Israel and Heaven itself in this context was the Temple, where the presence of God was in the Holiest of All." I never heard this before. Please show me from a credible Jewish source., 2 or more would be better, which supports this statement. Here from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia what the "kingdom of heaven" meant. And it ain't national Israel.

Christian and Jewish Conceptions.​

The greater, then, the oppression of the Worldly Kingdom (Rome), the more eager the Jewish people, particularly the pious ones, were for "the Kingdom of Heaven," as they called it, to come speedily. This is the ever-reiterated object of the prayers in the liturgy (Masseket Soferim, xiv. 12; et al.). It was even laid down that no benediction would be effective without reference to the Kingdom (Ber. 12a). It is the approach of this Kingdom of Heaven, in opposition to the Kingdom of Rome, which John the Baptist announced (Matt. iii. 2; comp. Luke i. 71-74, iii. 17). Jesus preached the same Kingdom of God (Matthew has preserved in "Kingdom of Heaven" the rabbinical expression "Malkut Shamayim"), and when he said, "the kingdom of God cometh not by observation [that is, calculation] . . . for, behold, the kingdom of God is among [not within] you" (Luke xvii. 21, Syriac version), he meant, "It does not come through rebellion or by force" (see Jew. Encyc. iv. 51, s.v. Christianity).​

KINGDOM OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com ​

Now who has "a terrible habit of reading into the scriptures what you wish to see?

 

[Der Alte]

***Apparently, the author has not read the quote from Augustine in which Augustine admitted that there were a "great mass" of Christians who believed in and taught Universal Salvation. Not a few. A "great mass." Augustine called them the "misericordia" or "the tender-hearted ones."***

Apparently you have not read the "quote" from Augustine. You are misquoting Augustine. Augustine did NOT say "A great mass." Augustine was from Hippo, North Africa. No TV, no radio, no internet, no newspaper. He might have been able to observe a few 100 in his local area and no, zero, none anywhere else in the world. Thus that "famous quote" means very, very little.
ETA:
The quote comes from chapter 112 of the Enchiridion.
Logos Virtual Library: Saint Augustine: The Enchiridion, 112

"It is in vain, then, that some, indeed very many, make moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not believe it shall be so..."Frustra itaque nonnulli, immo quam plurimi, aeternam damnatorum poenam et cruciatus sine intermissione perpetuos humano miserantur affectu, atque ita futurum esse non credunt​

Since Latin was Augustine's native language if he had intended to say "a great mass" that is exactly what he would have said. "magna pars."

 

[Der Alte]

Nice dodge. Would you like to answer my scriptures now, or are they too plain that God's plan is to save all?

God's plan to save all! How did God's plan to save the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, work out?

Jeremiah 13:11-14
(11) For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
(12) Therefore thou shalt speak unto them this word; Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Every bottle shall be filled with wine: and they shall say unto thee, Do we not certainly know that every bottle shall be filled with wine?
(13) Then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David's throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness.
(14) And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

And before posting a lot of objections show me from scripture where God, Himself, says the will have pity, will spare and will have mercy on those He has destroyed?

 

[Der Alte]

I can't deal with a closed mind. If you read that which was in bold and don't see that statements like eventually "no being will remain outside the number of the saved" and that "no being created by God will fall outside the Kingdom of God" are overwhelmingly universalist, then I can't help you.

It does not matter what any of the ECF wrote unless they are directly quoting scripture. In the absence of supporting scripture the opinions of the ECF are no more compelling than scribbling on a public facility wall.

 

[abacabb3]

"Hopeful universalism" is a heresy. Scriptures and universal tradition are against this.

May God save us (useless to say if we are all saved)!

 

[Light of the East]

"Hopeful universalism" is a heresy. Scriptures and universal tradition are against this.

May God save us (useless to say if we are all saved)!

Scripture and universal tradition are not against this. For the first 500 years of the Church, there were four theological schools which taught Universalism without so much as a single whimper against them or anyone calling them out for "heresy." They were closed by Emperor Justinian, who zealously hated the teaching and did not wish it to exist in the Roman Empire of the East.

Numerous saints taught it openly, including St. Isaac of Syria and St. Gregory of Nyssa (aka "The Father of the Fathers."). They were never accused of heresy nor condemned in any ecumenical council, which is very strange behavior from the councils if they were teaching heresy.

The Latin translations of the Sacred Scriptures are a disaster. Totally inaccurate in many places. The popular KJV and the Douay-Rheims both have numerous mistranslations of the Greek, despite what Der Alter thinks he knows. If you wish to know more, get the book by Dr. Illaria Ramelli's massive work on this "The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena." and be prepared to do some in depth study.

Of course, even a work like this will not convince you (or Der Alter) if you are determined to defend the horrendous idea of an unjust eternal conscious torment by the God who is love. I still haven't gotten an answer from Der Alter as to why the idea of God saving everyone gets him so upset. I would think such a teaching would be a reason for rejoicing in God's mercy. But that's just silly old me.

​

 

[Aaron112]

Universalism is heresy.

Or even worse than heresy? A false gospel! ? Never to be accepted, ..... because it leads multitudes to the way of destruction ?

 

[abacabb3]

Scripture and universal tradition are not against this. For the first 500 years of the Church, there were four theological schools which taught Universalism without so much as a single whimper against them or anyone calling them out for "heresy." They were closed by Emperor Justinian, who zealously hated the teaching and did not wish it to exist in the Roman Empire of the East.

This is not real history, regrettably. The Alexandrian synod condemned Origen in 400. Rome condemned Origen in the 490s. Even saints like Gregory of Nyssa make reference to eternal damnation in his writings, which may be why those who have not read Origen's voluminous works may have assumed that he, as a confessor, was not a universalist.

Universalistic apokatasis is a condemned heresy in the 7th eecumenical council. Origen is anthematized in Constantinople II's decree, Trullo's first Canon, and Nicea II's decree.

Merely positing a "Justinian conspiracy" does not undo the universal tradition of the Orthodox Church, because we accept our Councils. The fact you don't shows you are outside the pale of Orthodoxy and should not be claiming this is the Orthodox tradition. It obviously is not and is a condemned heresy.

Honestly, nothing is not more "normie Orthodox" than the doctrine of eternal damnation.

In the spirit of Lent, may God show us His grace, have mercy on us!

 

[Light of the East]

This is not real history, regrettably. The Alexandrian synod condemned Origen in 400. Rome condemned Origen in the 490s. Even saints like Gregory of Nyssa make reference to eternal damnation in his writings, which may be why those who have not read Origen's voluminous works may have assumed that he, as a confessor, was not a universalist.

Does a local synod have the same binding authority over the entire Church as an ecumenical council? As for the condemnation, Origen taught a number of things which were highly questionable regarding orthodox theology (pre-existence of souls, etc). Was Apokatastasis mentioned specifically, or are you using this as a catch all to include a doctrine which you distinctly do not like? If the intention was to condemn Apokatastasis, then where is the condemnation of this statement:

1. St Gregory of Nyssa

Even after the sixth century condemnation of Origenism, commonly attributed to the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) referred to St Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.395) as “father of the fathers” and “divine luminary of Nyssa.” Notably, no council ever condemned Gregory or his revised apokatastasis. In On the Soul and the Resurrection he taught ultimate redemption more boldly than Origen. And far from being a minor blemish on the fringe of his theology, Gregory’s universalist theosis permeates the whole and is central to it. For those who care to hear his blessed hope, this sample from his treatise on 1 Cor. 15:28 is typical:

What therefore does Paul teach us? It consists in saying that evil will come to nought and will be completely destroyed. The divine, pure goodness will contain in itself every nature endowed with reason; nothing made by God is excluded from his kingdom once everything mixed with some elements of base material has been consumed by refinement in fire. Such things had their origin in God; what was made in the beginning did not receive evil. Paul says this is so. He said that the pure and undefiled divinity of the Only-Begotten [Son] assumed man’s mortal and perishable nature. However, from the entirety of human nature to which the divinity is mixed, the man constituted according to Christ is a kind of first fruits of the common dough. It is through this [divinized] man that all mankind is joined to the divinity.

Those who think to deny the Orthodoxy of the final editor of the Nicene Creed ought not tread where the 5th council dared not. As for me, at the least, St Gregory of Nyssa permits me to hope.

Your objection is a common one, but I find that one of the problems with it is TRANSLATION. I have found several statements from the Fathers which appear to speak of "eternal torment" or "eternal punishment" which are not true to the Greek. The Greek original uses "aionios," but Western and Latin translators have translated this as "eternal." Couple this with the refusal to condemn all other Fathers who taught Apokatastasis, and you have evidence that this was indeed taught and believed from the very beginning.

Universalistic apokatasis is a condemned heresy in the 7th eecumenical council. Origen is anthematized in Constantinople II's decree, Trullo's first Canon, and Nicea II's decree.

Nope. I read the canons and I don't find it in any of the canons. There is no mention of it in Constantinople II. Now, if you wish to defend your position by appealing to the now discredited canons of Emperor Justinian, who imposed them upon the council under threat and without any justification at all, then be my guest. I refuse to acknowledge them as legitimate, as modern scholars and scholarship have shown them to be bogus as a three-dollar bill. So bogus, in fact, that the Catholic Encyclopedia Online refuses to publish them as part of Constantinople II's canons.

Merely positing a "Justinian conspiracy" does not undo the universal tradition of the Orthodox Church, because we accept our Councils. The fact you don't shows you are outside the pale of Orthodoxy and should not be claiming this is the Orthodox tradition. It obviously is not and is a condemned heresy.

It is not a "Justinian conspiracy." I am not the only one that questions what he did. As stated, modern scholarship rejects them. He gaslighted the council and held it under threat of violence, having kidnapped Pope Virgilius, who wanted no parts of it. Doesn't the Bible say something about kidnapping? That was a sin unto death, according to the law of the OT, but I guess when you are an Emperor and want something, kind of like Joe Biden and his disdain for the Catholic faith, you do what you wish and the Bible be hanged.

This most certainly IS an Orthodox tradition. Four theological schools teaching it for 500 years, multitudes believing it, some of the greatest Fathers of the Church teaching it, and you want to say this is NOT an Orthodox tradition. For the love of Pete, will you PLEASE do a little research into this and stop with the knee-jerk reactions? I didn't just wake up one day and decide that I liked the idea of God saving all. I spent a few years in constant research into the history, the people, and the politics of how this came about and who opposed and killed it in the Christian faith.

The same person who declared that unbaptized babies suffer eternal hell is the same person who opened the charge against Apokatastasis. This is history, and quite frankly, anyone whose mind is so darkened that he consigns the innocent unbaptized to eternal suffering is not a theologian for whom I have a great deal of respect or whose thoughts will hold court in my mind.