www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Regarding Hell

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/349206/Searchpage/3/Main/28231/Words/universal+salvation/Search/true/Re:%20Universal%20Salvation%20in%20the#Post349206

There is an excellent treatment of this idea of universal salvation in a thread of that name as the idea relates to the Fathers.

Stuart summed it up best and I link his post. Take a look at what the Church has already condemned in this area before you take any hard and fast positions so you don't come under the same condemnation.

In Christ,

Bob

I'm surprised at your tone here. You sound genuinely irked.

The Church has never formally condemned the Apokatastasis ton panton. The Church has often repeated the warnings of Christ about punishment in everlasting fire. But I would challenge anyone to produce a dogmatic definition issued by an Ecumenical Council that condemns the real possibility of Apokatastasis and proclaims that we must all believe in the endless torments of the damned.

It is commonly thought that the Fifth Council did so. This is not true. The canons against Origen which anathematized the teaching that the punishment of the wicked would come to an end came not from the Fifth Council, but from Emperor Justinian. They were never part of Constantinople II but were subscribed by a home synod under imperial pressure 10 years before the Ecumenical Council.

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:

1. It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.
2. It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated.
3. Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.
4. It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.
5. It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).
6. The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
7. It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.

It remains (at least) a legitimate theologumenon for a Catholic to hold that eventually all will be saved.

I am quite aware that my position goes further than that of H. U. von Balthasar and Kallistos Ware. But what I have very succinctly stated was taught at great length by not only the Alexandrians - Clement, Origen and their followers, but the Cappadocians Gregory of Nyssa (called the "Father of Fathers" by the Seventh Council), his sister Macrina the Younger, and as Archbishop Hilarion has recently demonstrated, Isaac of Syria as well. http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_6_10

Pray that Apokatastasis is true, just don't teach it as doctrine.

Gabriel:

Christ is in our midst!!

Forgive me if the tone sounded "irked." I'm not irked, simply cautious. I've been through so much heterodox preaching in the past 45 years that I have simply become one who wants only to hear what the Church teaches and have little time for opinions based on some form of--what seems to be--Western liberalism: that mushy emotionalism that cannot stand anything being right or wrong, or that cannot stand that there be consequences for one's actions.

To me, the Gospels are rather clear and theologumena that try to soften the clear teaching of the Gospels are dangerous. My parish has just been through a period of that and we are still suffering the effects of it. And when I hear some young person saying he wants to go to Heaven to meet Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others . . . I don't mean that we ought to judge people, but we do have an obligation to call evil, evil, when we encounter it. But if there are no consequences for actions, then there can be no reason to follow the Christian life, no reason to repent, no reason to struggle in seeking virtue, really no reason for anything.

Bob

or more succinctly, no reason to seek intimate union with the Lord, which is what repentance, struggle, and virtue all seek.

Could it be argued that this sounds very much like the brother of the Prodigal Son?

To take it one step further, if there are no consequences for actions, thoughts, etc., as the Lord plainly says there are, then why did He have to die on the Cross for all of us? Or are we walking about what is called "cheap grace"--the concept that we don't have to worry about anything because Jesus already paid the price and we can do what we want?

Bob

Bob, please reread my statement on page one, and show me where anything I said even remotely savours of the idea that there are no consequences for thoughts, words, or actions?

Christ died to save all mankind from the consequences of our sin. If some will suffer the consequences of sin for all eternity, then his sacrifice was in vain for those persons.

Divine wrath is real (analogically speaking), but it must be seen as subordinate to the ultimate end of the Divine plan of salvation for all. Otherwise you end up with God antecedently willing one thing - salvation for all - and consequently willing the opposite - eternal damnation for some (many!). God's will is *not* at war with itself! A condemnation to an aeonic punishment to prepare the wicked for their ultimate good and the fulfilment of God's plan of salvation fits ALL the biblical data.

Gabriel,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have been following this but not wanting to engage because I doubt this will be too short of a thread unless we start ignoring it, but you say ALL Biblical data supports this idea? I cannot, because of time go in to too much a defense of the eternity of a souls choice to turn against God, but what of the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man?I'm reading St. John Chrysostom's "On Wealth and Poverty" and I think you might have to start arguing with him on this. I am not finished yet with that book, so I do not want to say more than that for now. But he does seem to believe in the eternity of hell. I do not yet have an in depth understanding of the fathers yet, but I'm slowly starting. But your thoughts on that parable then?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Dear Manuel,

Glory forever!

Please remember that in interpreting a parable we must stick to the main point of comparison and not get carried away with details. I do not feel compelled by the great stature of St John Chrysostom to accept his tortured (no pun intended) interpretation of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. I do think Chrysostom confused Hades and Gehenna. The main point of the parable in a moral reading - which is what St John was giving - is that we are responsible for the beggar at our gate.

In an historical reading of the parable the main point seems to be that the Jews (the rich man) and the Gentiles (Lazarus) would experience a reversal of their fortunes. The flame of torment refers to the burning of the Temple in the destruction of Jerusalem.

I thought you might be interested in the following. Note well, I am *not* a follower of Hans Kung, but I think that on this point he has spoken very well. http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/kunghell.html

Gabriel:

Christ is in our midst!!

I think your point misses one very important area in Christian thought--the area of free will. Those who spend eternity in Hell, the Hell of the damned, do so of their own free will. In other words, no one ends up there except by his own choice. God gave us free will and He does not take it back. He does, indeed, desire all of us to be saved and Our Lord's Saving Sacrifice was and is for all mankind. That it is rejected by some--completely and without repentance--has made it all the more painful for Him. But to follow your argument, it would make a mockery of man's free will to say that a lifetime of rejection of God ultimately forces one into an eternity of living something and with Someone one has rejected. How does that work?

It is one thing to say that all MIGHT be saved and it is one thing to say that one may pray that all MAY be saved--and I do, twice a day--but it is not true that all WILL be saved. In fact, Our Lord's prayer on the Cross may be interpreted to mean just that. No only did He pray for those who were then and there crucifying Him, but He was also praying for all of us who do not fully realize the gross ugliness of sin, the awful nature of sin, the utter separation from the Father that sin is--something that he, being in perfect communion with the Father had not experienced until He cried out on the Cross--"My God, My God, why hast Thou foresaken Me?"

Bob

But how can you say that, any more than I (who am all but convinced-and by Holy Scripture-that all will be saved) could say to you, "it is not true that some will be damned"? What lies beyond this present world in the flesh is a mystery not yet fully revealed to us. I believe that it is foolish not to take seriously the possibility of the eternal damnation of some because of certain passages in the Gospels, in the Revelation of St. John, and scattered throughout the Epistles. However, I read John 12:32 and 2 Peter 3:9, and I am convinced that ultimately, in ways we need not understand, God will save us all. But again, I do not and cannot know this with certainty, and I do not believe that you do or can know with certainty that it is not true that all will be saved.

Bob,

If you know that "it is not true that all WILL be saved", then you have no business hoping or praying that it MIGHT be so.

As to free will, I understand it's significance in the Christian life. Certainly God does not drag anyone into heaven willy nilly.

Yet while it is true that God has given us free will, that does not mean that God has given us the ultimate determination of our eternal destiny. That belongs to his predestination. And the Church clearly teaches that God has predestined no one to damnation. (Second Council of Orange)

On the other hand, if God has given us in free will the means of destroying ourselves, he would be like an irresponsible father who gives his young child a loaded gun with a hair-trigger to play with.

Moving on from these preliminaries I call to your mind the important distinction between gnomic will (the deliberative function choosing between alternatives based on limited knowledge) and natural will (the spontaneous movement toward the proper end to which our nature was created.) St Maximos the Confessor made the important point at the Sixth Ecumenical Council that Jesus had a true natural human will, but no gnomic will. He also taught that in the resurrection gnomic will shall be transformed and pure natural will shall be restored to man. If this is so, then those who have been wicked on earth will freely embrace God's will for their life. Here is a quote from St Maximos: [Transformation of man's gnomic will will happen] "because of the general change and renewal which will take place in the future, at the end of the ages, through God our Savior: a universal renewal of the whole human race, natural but by grace."

See the entire (excellent!) article on Apokatastasis in Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximos the Confessor here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080115195446/www.romancatholicism.org/maximos-apokatastasis.htm

Gabriel:

Christ is in our midst!!

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think I'll take Our Lord at His Word in Matthew 25:31-46. That seems to me to be the clearest teaching about this matter that I can find.

Bob

And I'll take Our Lord at His Word in John 12:32, where he says that when he is lifted up, he will draw all men unto himself.