www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Universal Salvation

I found the following essay (part of a lecture I beleive) by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev on the eschatology of St Isaac the Syrian to be utterly fascinating. Would anyone care to comment on this article and it's eschatology?

Article Here [en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org]

Jason

The idea of universal salvation has been repeatedly condemed by the Church.
Stephanos I

Did you read the article or did you comment on the thread title?

I think the following statements are enough to summarize the article:


This view has been condemned by the Church, and there is nothing in Divine Revelation to ultimately support such a view.

Peace and God bless!

You are correct Ghosty.
Stephanos I

What then are we to make of the writings of this person Isaac of Ninevah? Is he a heretic or a saint? If he is a saint as the Orthodox tell us then why hasn't he been condemned along with Origen?

I do not agree with his opinion that we can assert positively all WILL be saved since this violates mans freedom in the matter. And it is my understanding that this is precisely what has been condemned by the church. Not the hope that all MIGHT be saved. Do we not pray to this end?

Jason

Jason,

I've also been interested in this question, but for a different reason. St. Isaac was also a Nestorian.

As to "universal salvation", wasn't there also some stream of thought within the Cappadocians that came close to this as well?

Of course, there is nothing wrong with maintaining the hope that all will be saved, as per von Balthasaar's contention.

God bless,

Gordo

My reading of the condemnation of Origenist universalism at the fifth Ecumenical Council is that it is just that, a condemnation of the form of universalism based on Origenist metaphysical assumptions (at least as they were understood by Justinian and the bishops sympathetic to his view). In other words, the condemnation was of the doctrine of universal salvation seen as an ontological necessity. Origen's notion was intimately tied into his belief in the preexistence of souls, hence the very first of the 15 anathemas against him reads: "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema" (my emphasis).

What we find in other fathers, however, especially St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Isaac the Syrian, is a form of universalism based on a more orthodox ontology of creation ex nihilo. In this version of the doctrine the moving force is not ontological necessity but divine freedom attracting human freedom. (I myself think that one of the reasons the Christian neoplatonism of St. Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite was so attractive to fathers like St. Maximus and St. John of Damascus was that it provided a philosophical resolution of the problem of freedom and necessity within which a form of universal salvation could be recovered from the ashes of Origenism.)

Put simply, I do not think that the Church has condemned the idea of universal salvation in itself, but only those forms that subject God and humanity to necessity. Where a theologian is able to articulate a version of the doctrine that respects freedom and admits to the possibility of universal salvation, this remains a legitimate theologoumenon.

Hieromonk Maximos
www.hrmonline.org [hrmonline.org]

I agree with the good Fr. Maximos. There have been a number of theologians down through the years that have speculated on various forms of universal salvation that do not follow Origin's teaching and that have not been condemned by the Church.

The problem with this question is simply that we do not know who will be saved and who will not be. Since we do not know God's mind on this matter, it follows that whatever we speculate is just that, speculation (theologumenon).

Fr. Deacon Ed

Thank you Gordo, Fr Maximos and Fr Deacon Ed for taking my question seriously and not dropping a pat answer my way.

As Fr Maximos pointed out, St Isaac's eschatology was based on a more orthodox idea of ex nihilo rather than Origen's "hinduism" lol. Moreover, contra many who emphasize the love and mercy of God, St Isaac firmly taught the reality of Hell and that it was to be avoided at all costs. Many others err in the direction of either "no hell" or "annihilation".

Still, I see scant biblical or traditional evidence that the demons themselves will receive forgiveness and find a place in the kingdom of Heaven. This is just absurd. Heretical? No. Absurd? yes.

As I said in my previous post, I don't agree with St Isaac on the universal salvation of humanity either, at least not in terms of final realization. I believe that Christ's atonement did in fact save the whole of humanity. So in one sense everyone is saved. But not everyone will accept the gift and will refuse the salvation that is theirs. This is simply because of free will. God will coerce no one to love him but he will certainly not refuse the slightest overture from someone.

Jason