What is the Catholic, Orthodox or your own Protestant denominational view on universalism?

[zippy2006]

I found the “source” for the Orthodox representative…Reddit!

Oh, that random Reddit guy who represents the Orthodox Church! How could I have forgotten about him!?

And who is the Catholic "representative"? Of course it is that other random Reddit guy!

The quote from the "Catholic representative" is actually visible in the screenshot you attached to your post, but it can also be viewed here.

 

[Hmm]

To affirm eternal punishment is to deny Universalism. Orthodoxy, at Nicea II and elsewhere, affirms eternal punishment. Therefore, Orthodoxy denies Universalism.

Here is another example from the sixth session of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea:

"Definition 18: If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to his merits, in the righteous balance of the Lord that neither will there be any end of punishment nor indeed of the kingdom of heaven, that is the full enjoyment of God, for the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink but righteousness joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, as the divine Apostle teaches, let him be anathema." *​

​

In short, "If anyone does not confess that there will neither be any end of punishment nor of the kingdom of heaven... Let him be anathema."

Universalists deny that there will be no end to punishment, for Universalists affirm an end to punishment. Therefore according to Nicea II, Universalists are anathema.

​

* The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea, Held A.D. 787, in which the Worship of Images was Established, by W.E. Painter, pg. 423

Is this the same Seventh General Council of the Church held in the year 787 that honoured the universalist St. Gregory of Nyssa, by naming him "Father of the Fathers."?

The anathema condemned Origen's own idiosyncratic views on universalism, not universalism as it was commonly understood.

I looked up commentaries of this text in the original Greek and they all say that the word "aionios" was used. This has been effectively translated to "eternal" "neither will there be any end" in your translation but it actually means "age-lasting" i.e. lasting for an age, a long though finite period. The change in meaning occurred when the Greek was translated into Latin. Didn't Augustine, the Catholic's Gregory of Nyssa, play a huge role in popularising eternal punishment and didn't he admit to knowing no Greek and despising the language?

So read in this light...

"Definition 18: If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to his merits, in the righteous balance of the Lord that neither will there be any end of punishment nor indeed of the kingdom of heaven, that is the full enjoyment of God, for the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink but righteousness joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, as the divine Apostle teaches, let him be anathema."

Eternal punishment becomes "correction lasting for an age" which is universalist in meaning. Universalism does not deny "punishment" but it says that this "punishment" is corrective in nature and is therefore time-limited. It does not believe that punishment is eternal and neither does Definition 18. You obviously do as you keep reminding us but that's as maybe and, as I keep saying, this thread is not about personal opinion.

 

[zippy2006]

Is this the same Seventh General Council of the Church held in the year 787 that honoured the universalist St. Gregory of Nyssa, by naming him "Father of the Fathers."?

You have a pretty crazy double standard. You want precise attribution and sourcing from all of your interlocutors, and yet you yourself fail to provide even the slimmest attribution or sourcing for your own claims. Show us the place in Nicea II where such a thing is said. Let's see some sources, for once.

In any case, Gregory of Nyssa is a saint in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. That doesn't mean he was infallible.

The anathema condemned Origen's own idiosyncratic views on universalism, not universalism as it was commonly understood.

No, Nicea II had nothing to do with Origen. You're just desperately appealing to arguments you've heard in the past, arguments which relate to earlier Councils but not to Nicea II. Constantinople II concerned itself with Origen, and Constantinople III gives him dishonorable mention. Go back, read my post on this, and inform yourself.

Again, you are projecting your own desires onto the text. Here is your quote that you claim proves ECT.

But read it:

"Definition 18: If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to his merits, in the righteous balance of the Lord that neither will there be any end of punishment nor indeed of the kingdom of heaven, that is the full enjoyment of God, for the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink but righteousness joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, as the divine Apostle teaches, let him be anathema."

Where does it mention eternal punishment? You seem to like bolding and italicising so could you highlight the relevant parts because I just don't see it?

Do you have any shame at all? Do you honestly claim not to know what this phrase means? "Neither will there be any end of punishment."

Universalism does not deny "punishment" but it says that this "punishment" is corrective in nature and is therefore time-limited. It does not believe that punishment is eternal...

Exactly, and that is why Universalism is anathematized at Nicea II. It specifically says that those who do not believe punishment is eternal are anathema.

 

[prodromos]

Is this the same Seventh General Council of the Church held in the year 787 that honoured the universalist St. Gregory of Nyssa, by naming him "Father of the Fathers."?

St Gregory is not a universalist. The most that can be said is that he hopes all will be saved.

 

[Hmm]

St Gregory is not a universalist. The most that can be said is that he hopes all will be saved.

It's generally accepted that he is. Even Wikipedia knows this:

"Since the mid-twentieth century, there has been a significant increase in interest in Gregory's works from the academic community, particularly involving universal salvation, which has resulted in challenges to many traditional interpretations of his theology."

I can see why the increase in the interest in universalism correlates with Internet access and the availability of knowedge that brings.

 

[prodromos]

It's generally accepted that he is. Even Wikipedia knows this:

"Since the mid-twentieth century, there has been a significant increase in interest in Gregory's works from the academic community, particularly involving universal salvation, which has resulted in challenges to many traditional interpretations of his theology."

Ah, the unimpeachable Wikipedia. I guess that settles it.

 

[Michie]

It's generally accepted that he is. Even Wikipedia knows this:

"Since the mid-twentieth century, there has been a significant increase in interest in Gregory's works from the academic community, particularly involving universal salvation, which has resulted in challenges to many traditional interpretations of his theology."

Wikipedia? Really.

 

[Hmm]

It's generally accepted that he is. Even Wikipedia knows this:

"Since the mid-twentieth century, there has been a significant increase in interest in Gregory's works from the academic community, particularly involving universal salvation, which has resulted in challenges to many traditional interpretations of his theology."

I can see why the increase in the interest in universalism correlates with Internet access and the availability of knowedge that brings.

A couple of scoffers above, about Wikipedia I presume, although who knows?

Wikipedia is a good introductory source for most topics and is used as such by everyone I know in every field of life including Maths. teachers (my field) and engineers (previous field). Every serious article like the one I linked to is administered by informed and passionate volunteers. It can't be cited in an academic work but this is not an academic forum.

This is hard work but seems necessary.

Gregory of Nyssa is regarded as a universalist by every serious scholar I'm familiar with. Here are a few quotes from him that explain why:

"For it is evident that God will in truth be all in all when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created being is at harmony with iteself and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body."

"Wherefore, that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan; to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness ...either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire. "

"Our Lord is the One who delivers man [all men], and who heals the inventor of evil himself."

"For it is needful that evil should some day be wholly and absolutely removed out of the circle of being."

 

[Hmm]

Lies abounding.

Are you calling me a liar?

 

[prodromos]

A couple of scoffers above, about Wikipedia I presume, although who knows?

Wikipedia is a good introductory source for most topics and is used as such by everyone I know in every field of life including Maths. teachers (my field) and engineers (previous field). Every serious article like the one I linked to is administered by informed and passionate volunteers. It can't be cited in an academic work but this is not an academic forum.

This is hard work but seems necessary.

Gregory of Nyssa is regarded as a universalist by every serious scholar I'm familiar with. Here are a few quotes from him that explain why:

"For it is evident that God will in truth be all in all when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created being is at harmony with iteself and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body."

"Wherefore, that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan; to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness ...either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire. "

"Our Lord is the One who delivers man [all men], and who heals the inventor of evil himself."

"For it is needful that evil should some day be wholly and absolutely removed out of the circle of being."

It is not hard work to simply copy/paste a few quotes from another website, providing no references, no links to the works quoted so they can't be read in full context.
What does take effort is to read the works of St Gregory in order to gain a full understanding of his position. I am slowly making my way through the works of several Church Fathers and it is no easy task.

 

[JSRG]

It's generally accepted that he is. Even Wikipedia knows this:

"Since the mid-twentieth century, there has been a significant increase in interest in Gregory's works from the academic community, particularly involving universal salvation, which has resulted in challenges to many traditional interpretations of his theology."

I can see why the increase in the interest in universalism correlates with Internet access and the availability of knowedge that brings.

First, that statement does not say he was a universalist. It rather says that there is interest in his writings "particularly involving universal salvation." That merely says they are interested in what he wrote on the subject, not that he was a universalist.

And indeed, that statement you give is at the start of the article--that is, it is meant as an abbreviated summary about him. The article later on goes into far more detail on this subject, and makes it abundantly clear that whether he was a universalist or not is not entirely clear. I'm going to quote the entirety of its "Universalism" subsection of the article on him (viewable at Gregory of Nyssa - Wikipedia):

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 to undergo a long period of purification, eventually "no being will remain outside the number of the saved"[46] and that "no being created by God will fall outside the Kingdom of God".[47] Due to the unity of human nature in Christ "all, thanks to the union with one another, will be joined in communion with the Good, in Jesus Christ Our Lord".[48] By his incarnation, death and resurrection Christ achieves "the common salvation of human nature".[49]

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."[50] That this is what Gregory believed and taught is affirmed by most scholars.[51][52][53][54][55] A minority of scholars have argued that Gregory only affirmed the universal resurrection.[56]

In the Life of Moses, Gregory writes that just as the darkness left the Egyptians after three days, perhaps redemption [ἀποκατάστασις] will be extended to those suffering in hell [γέεννα].[57] This salvation may not only extend to humans; following Origen, there are passages where he seems to suggest (albeit through the voice of Macrina) that even the demons will have a place in Christ's "world of goodness".[58] Gregory's interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15:28 ("And when all things shall be subdued unto him ...")[59] and Philippians 2:10 ("That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth")[60] support this understanding of his theology.[58]

Nevertheless, in the Great Catechism, Gregory suggests that while every human will be resurrected, salvation will only be accorded to the baptised, although he also states that others driven by their passions can be saved after being purified by fire.[61] While he believes that there will be no more evil in the hereafter, it is arguable that this does not preclude a belief that God might justly damn sinners for eternity.[62] Thus, the main difference between Gregory's conception of ἀποκατάστασις and that of Origen would be that Gregory believes that mankind will be collectively returned to sinlessness, whereas Origen believes that personal salvation will be universal.[62] This interpretation of Gregory has been criticized recently, however.[63][64] Indeed, this interpretation is explicitly contradicted[citation needed] in the "Great Catechism" itself, for at the end of chapter XXXV Gregory declares that those who have not been purified by water through baptism will be purified by fire in the end, so that "their nature may be restored pure again to God". On the contrary, Saint Gregory also affirms that "without the laver of regeneration it is impossible for the man to be in the resurrection", meaning that the salvation will not be universal.[65] Furthermore, in the next chapter (ch. XXXVI), Gregory says that those who are purified from evil will be admitted into the "heavenly company".[66]

Attempting to reconcile these disparate positions, Eastern Orthodox theologian Dr. Mario Baghos notes that "when taken at face value the saint seems to be contradicting himself in these passages; on the one hand he asserted the salvation of all and the complete eradication of evil, and, on the other, that the fire needed to purge evil is 'sleepless', i.e. everlasting. The only solution to this inconsistency is to view any allusion to universal salvation in St Gregory as an expression of God's intention for humanity, which is in fact attested to when his holy sister states that God has "one goal ... some straightway even in this life purified from evil, others healed hereafter through fire for the appropriate length of time." That we can choose either to accept or ignore this purification is confirmed by the saint's many exhortations that we freely undertake the virtuous path."[67] Dr. Ilaria Ramelli has made the observation that for Gregory free will was compatible with universal salvation, since every person would eventually accept the good having gone through purification.[63]Nevertheless, some interpret Gregory as conceding that Judas and similar sinners will never be completely purified when he wrote, "that which never existed is to be preferred to that which has existed in such sin. For, as to the latter, on account of the depth of the ingrained evil, the chastisement in the way of purgation will be extended into infinity".[68][69] However, Ramelli renders the original Greek "εἰς ἄπειρον παρατείνεται ἡ διὰ τῆς καθάρσεως κόλασις" as "the punishment provided for the purpose of purification will tend to an indefinite duration."[70] Additional sources are needed to interpret correctly the questioned chapter.

Thus the very Wikipedia article you appeal to acknowledges it is not clear that he was a universalist.

 

[Andrewn]

Tolstoy carelessly, self-assuredly, and not in the fear of God, approached God, unworthily communicated and became an apostate.

Isn't the saint talking about meeting God after death? How does he know what happened to Tolstoy after death?

That impure, unclean fire comes from the whirlwind of the fires of hell which splashes over the whole earth.

Don't the EO believe that the fire of hell is a subjective experience of God by sinners? But here, the saint seems to describe hell as an objective reality created by God.

 

[Hmm]

Don't the EO believe that the fire of hell is a subjective experience of God by sinners? But here, the saint seems to describe hell as an objective reality created by God.

My understanding is that the EO believes that hell is a subjective experience rather than an objective reality like a prison that is going to hold us captive forever (ECT). An analogy is that God's love is like wind which always blows in one direction. When we walk in His will, the wind is at our back and carries us along, but when we go against His will, we're walking against the wind and so experience His love as wrath. So God is always loving, but we may experience it differently.

An example in human terms would suppose at Christmas you had a relative you didn't get on with. You know they will feel obliged to buy you a present but you expect something they know you won't like: a bottle of wine perhaps if you don't drink. But suppose you tried to transcend the bad relationship and buy them something thoughtful. When they open you present and see the thought that had gone into it, you can well imagine that might think something like "You did this on purpose to hurt me!" This is an example of how love can be experienced as fire.

This is the EO conception of hell and God's love as described by DBH, Jersak, and Ilaria Ramelli. I realise it's at odds with the contributions made by EO members so far on this thread. But it makes sense. Looking at the world around us, we see many people in our broken society who experience love as a form of suffering. Orthodox Christians believe that eternity will be no different since God is always love.

The question that universalism poses is, okay, we may experience God's love as suffering, but will this experience be eternal? What's the EO view on this?

It seems to me that the view is a divided one. On the one hand, you have the universalism, called apokatastasis at the time, of Gregory of Nyssa (this has also been disputed by EO members but unconvincingly IMO) and oofDBH et al. On the other hand, you have Orthodox members like those we've heard from who have adopted the ECT view.

 

[Der Alte]

It's generally accepted that he is. Even Wikipedia knows this:
"Since the mid-twentieth century, there has been a significant increase in interest in Gregory's works from the academic community, particularly involving universal salvation, which has resulted in challenges to many traditional interpretations of his theology."
I can see why the increase in the interest in universalism correlates with Internet access and the availability of knowedge that brings.

Wiki is about as reliable as the scribbling on a public facility wall right next to "For a good time call XXXXXXXX." Anybody can post or change anything on wiki without review or control. A few years ago, I did it a few times to prove that it can be done.

 

[Wayne Gabler]

Re:20:4-5 includes Adam and Eve and all their children as being gathered in two similar events. Since there is 'other flesh' in the new earth all of them that had life on this earth will be resurrected once there are pastures in the new earth for them as they will need to eat to remain alive:
Lu:12:6-6:
Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings,
and not one of them is forgotten before God?
But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear not therefore:
ye are of more value than many sparrows.

They are modelled after the 4 beast in Re:4, that means they do not go to sleep when they die. Between death and their resurrection, they are awake and seeing all Encoh saw in his travels to some part of the Universe. All men will see the same sights when they are immortals, the other flesh will stay on the world they are resurrected on, they will grow in numbers all the time.

Forever Young: Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation​

 

[RileyG]

Pope Francis has said things that sound to universalist to universalists.

Yes. People like to twist his words to fit their agenda.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes. People like to twist his words to fit their agenda.

Much as they twist the words of scripture to fit their agendas.

 

[RileyG]

Much as they twist the words of scripture to fit their agendas.

True.

 

[zippy2006]

Pope Francis has said things that sound to universalist to universalists.

Everything sounds like Universalism to Universalists. I have spoken to this problem in many places, including here, here, and here. @All4Christ's question is spot-on, "Why ask if your opinion is fully formed and set?" The Universalists on this board have decided, before any discussion ever begins, that Universalism must be true and that nothing will ever convince them otherwise. They are like Hart, who claims that even if an ecumenical council condemned Universalism, he wouldn't care. Elsewhere he says that if Christianity is incompatible with Universalism, he will abandon Christianity. This is why arguing with a Universalist is like arguing with a flat-earther, but worse. My interactions with Universalists have shown that there is no conceivable argument in the realm of logical possibility that would convince these folks that Universalism is false, or that it is incompatible with Christianity. "Intransigent," "unserious," "immovable," and, "implacable" are a few of the words we have to describe such people.

As we have seen in this thread, they will cling to absurdities if their position requires it. They will claim that it is a "divided opinion"* when 999 people are on one side and 1 person is on the other side. They will claim that* the conciliar phrase, "Neither will there be any end of punishment," has nothing to do with eternal punishment. Or, failing that, the translation must be faulty (despite the fact that they know nothing about Greek, and have read nothing even second-hand about 8th century Greek). It is worth no one's time to interact or argue with a person who behaves in this manner. They have no interest in examining the evidence and seeing where it leads, and therefore they have no interest in truth. Infinitely intransigent individuals have no love for truth.

* These quotes capture the unedited versions.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Everything sounds like Universalism to Universalists.

As I pointed out things said by Pope Francis and John Paul II have been criticized for sounding too inclusionist and or universalist. So it's hardly just been universalists who have seen it that way.

I have spoken to this problem in many places, including here, here, and here. @All4Christ's question is spot-on, "Why ask if your opinion is fully formed and set?" The Universalists on this board have decided, before any discussion ever begins, that Universalism must be true and that nothing will ever convince them otherwise. They are like Hart, who claims that even if an ecumenical council condemned Universalism, he wouldn't care. Elsewhere he says that if Christianity is incompatible with Universalism, he will abandon Christianity. This is why arguing with a Universalist is like arguing with a flat-earther, but worse. My interactions with Universalists have shown that there is no conceivable argument in the realm of logical possibility that would convince these folks that Universalism is false, or that it is incompatible with Christianity. "Intransigent," "unserious," "immovable," and, "implacable" are a few of the words we have to describe such people.

As we have seen in this thread, they will cling to absurdities if their position requires it. They will claim that it is a "divided opinion"* when 999 people are on one side and 1 person is on the other side. They will claim that* the conciliar phrase, "Neither will there be any end of punishment," has nothing to do with eternal punishment. Or, failing that, the translation must be faulty (despite the fact that they know nothing about Greek, and have read nothing even second-hand about 8th century Greek). It is worth no one's time to interact or argue with a person who behaves in this manner. They have no interest in examining the evidence and seeing where it leads, and therefore they have no interest in truth. Infinitely intransigent individuals have no love for truth.

* These quotes capture the unedited versions.

This is mainly an ad hominem approach. Attacking the proponents rather than addressing the doctrine itself. Are you lacking a good theological argument?