Christian Universalism

[Hilarion]

I recently read Kallistos Ware's article Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All? and I have to say I was impressed by some of the arguments he presented in favor of universalism (i.e., the idea that all will be saved and eventually be unified with God in Heaven). In fact, universalism was supported by several prominent Early Christian theologians, including Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Isaac the Syrian. I'll paraphrase the arguments Ware summarizes for and against universalism here, since I haven't done much research into the subject outside of the article.

For universalism

• God desires that everyone be saved, and through the power of his divine love, it will be so. Since love is greater than all forces of darkness or evil, all people will eventually decide of their own free will to respond to God's love.
• Hell is not punishment but a state of mind, in which Hell is only sustained by actively refusing God's love. Since God's love is never withdrawn (it is in all things) it is possible for everyone in hell to some day open their hearts to God and accept his love. And, again, God's love will prevail.
• Evil or Hell also has no substantive existence, but are only a distortion of good. Existence is good and a gift from God, so it follows that nothing in existence can be entirely evil. Where there is existence, there is hope for salvation. As an extension of this argument, it is possible that all will be saved because all those who remain in Hell will simply cease to exist and lapse into non-being. Ware calls this not so much universal salvation as "conditional immortality."

Against universalism

• All humans have free will. The notion that all humans will be saved is in violation of this free will, and without Hell, there is no freedom. Eternal rejection of God is the essence of Hell, and we are free to stay in Hell forever so long as there is freedom of choice. God can do nothing to compel us to accept his love; therefore, it is impossible to say that all will be saved.
• There is a point of no return or "inseparable gulf" between those who have rejected God's love and those who have embraced it, in which crossing over is impossible (think the story of Lazarus). Free will still exists, but in a different way: all those in heaven will have only good choices, whereas all those in hell will be faced with only bad choices, so it will be impossible for them to ascend to heaven.
• It defies justice that wicked people should eventually be rewarded with heaven as equally as the good.
• Universalism defies the idea that salvation must be attained in this lifetime. If we can attain salvation after death, what's the point of struggling to live righteously while we're still alive, and not descending into complete depravity? (Isaac the Syrian responds by stating that the torment of hell still exists but is not eternal).

I find the argument from divine love very persuasive, and I think that free will is fully capable of being reconciled to universalism. Maybe some of you will call me a heretic like Origen but keep in mind that Gregory of Nyssa also supported universalism and was not anathematized, but in fact was made a saint. In any case, I'd like to here other opinions on this, especially from our knowledgeable resident theologians.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

A more attenuated form of Apocatastasis can be witnessed in the teachings of the Orthodox Church in this regard. Hell is not punishment and separation of God, but merely the most inferior degree of Salvation in union with God, since there can be no separation (Romanides).

Suffice to say that apocatastasis, while being heretical, is in itself highly interesting.

[Hilarion]

A more attenuated form of Apocatastasis can be witnessed in the teachings of the Orthodox Church in this regard. Hell is not punishment and separation of God, but merely the most inferior degree of Salvation in union with God, since there can be no separation (Romanides).

Suffice to say that apocatastasis, while being heretical, is in itself highly interesting.

Yes, I didn't use the term apocatastasis because it is unfamiliar to most people, but true, it was espoused by Origen and officially condemned as heretical in 553 by Justinian. Although I am not sure this is exactly what Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian believed, otherwise they would have been condemned too instead of made saints? They must have been more discreet or indeterminate in their arguments than Origen. Or as you say, attenuated. And yet, as Ware writes, Gregory clearly states there will be a "final restoration... [which] will embrace even the devil." This sounds very much like apocatastasis to me.

[Prodigal]

Oh wow, can of worms. You'll find many varied opinions on this topic in the Orthodox Church. While on the one hand we have some people arguing that universal salvation is a possibility, there is also the fact that countless saints have made statements on the very few people who will make it to heaven. And of course, the famous quote by St. John Maximovitch, that "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

Also, the idea that everybody in heaven will be rewarded equally is kind of eeeeh. There is always the fact that we gain crowns for conquering passions, doing good acts, etc. kind of points to the fact that we won't really be equal per se. Then again, I'm no theologian, so don't take my word for fact.

[Denny Crane!]

Thus we enter the realm of moral nihilism and pointlessness.

Ugh. How can anyone believe this vileness?

[Hilarion]

Thus we enter the realm of moral nihilism and pointlessness.

Ugh. How can anyone believe this vileness?

Does a lack of eternal punishment implicate moral nihilism?

[Denny Crane!]

Does a lack of eternal punishment implicate moral nihilism?

No.

[Hilarion]

No.

Then what is the concern? Clearly even the universalists believed in a Hell of some form.

[Denny Crane!]

Then what is the concern? Clearly even the universalists believed in a Hell of some form.

Just look at every criticism around only being moral because of punishment (nihilism)

Or every other criticism of God being the only morality (the usual counter) aka B Russel and hell even Plato

[Squiggle]

[...]

I dont understand why this argument, in your mind [both sides] seems to hinge on a philosophical understanding of God's traits, the processes of salvation etc? Should you not be dolling out relevant verses and in which direction you think they argue? This whole discussion starts and ends with the bible.

Oh wow, can of worms. You'll find many varied opinions on this topic in the Orthodox Church. While on the one hand we have some people arguing that universal salvation is a possibility, there is also the fact that countless saints have made statements on the very few people who will make it to heaven. And of course, the famous quote by St. John Maximovitch, that "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

Also, the idea that everybody in heaven will be rewarded equally is kind of eeeeh. There is always the fact that we gain crowns for conquering passions, doing good acts, etc. kind of points to the fact that we won't really be equal per se. Then again, I'm no theologian, so don't take my word for fact.

It's literally incoherent to say that heaven, a state of perfect love and communion in God, can be better or worse for a specific individual. It contradicts the entire idea.

[Hilarion]

I dont understand why this argument, in your mind [both sides] seems to hinge on a philosophical understanding of God's traits, the processes of salvation etc? Should you not be dolling out relevant verses and in which direction you think they argue? This whole discussion starts and ends with the bible. It's literally incoherent to say that heaven, a state of perfect love and communion in God, can be better or worse for a specific individual. It contradicts the entire idea.

The issue with using strictly Scripture is that it supports both sides. Against universalism, you have Matthew 25:41 ("Then he will say to those at His left hand, 'You that are accused, depart from Me into the eternal fire'") or Luke 16:26 ("Between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.") For universalism, there is I Corinthians 15:28 "...When all things are made subject to the Son, then the Son himself will be made subject to the Father, who has subjected all things to Him; and thus God will be all in all." Or I Tim 2:4, "It is the will of God our Savior... that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth."

[Prodigal]

It's literally incoherent to say that heaven, a state of perfect love and communion in God, can be better or worse for a specific individual. It contradicts the entire idea.

But that's not what I said.

[basics]

Viscout Bolingbroke,

The concept that all men and women will be saved runs contrary to the word of God and is particularly significant in that it is manmade. Scripture begins with man in a fallen state being separated from God and continues with God putting to account those that become saints through faith which can only be faith of Jesus Christ which is unto all and upon all them that believe.

We know from the beginning on that most never believed, dying in sin because they never had faith and they never had it because that wonder is a gift from God and no other. Jesus very aptly describes the man in hell pleading that his brothers be told of the torment hell brings yet his requests are refused. Jesus also tells of what happens to them that are in hell on the last day and there is no consolation for them.

So what makes a man think that all men will be saved is mere conjecture especially since all them that are, are separated from the rest of the world and its religions and non-religions. God is quite unambiguous about this. For sure the Gospel is universal but salvation is particular and only so to them that the Lord God will call. The theory that Jesus' blood was shed for all mankind certainly means that all mankind is sinless and if that were the case why bother with Scripture at all?

But Scripture clearly states that those who are saved are so by election through grace so that no man might boast. Clearly election tells us something that men cannot yet grasp. It points to the fact that whilst some are chosen, others are not, and if they are not from whence comes their salvation? Therefore the theory that the man in hell as spoken of by Jesus, need not worry about his brothers and his greed, may well end up boasting.

No this is mere secular, liberal nonsense and those that care for their own souls would be better placed paying heed to the Gospel and not the words of men.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I think the Orthodox Church fathers hope for universalism but the reality is quite different as God has gifted us with free will.

[Hilarion]

I think the Orthodox Church fathers hope for universalism but the reality is quite different as God has gifted us with free will.

Yes, hope for universal salvation is the most we can aspire to; but the reality is that God only knows whether some will be subject to eternal estrangement from His love. At some point, I think, we must accept the final authority of the divine mystery which lies beyond our comprehension, and nothing about universalism can be stated with absolute certainty beyond hope of its realization. To not hope for the salvation of all, especially since we are commanded to love even our enemies, seems very un-Christian to me.

[SigniferOne]

Yes, hope for universal salvation is the most we can aspire to; but the reality is that God only knows whether some will be subject to eternal estrangement from His love. At some point, I think, we must accept the final authority of the divine mystery which lies beyond our comprehension, and nothing about universalism can be stated with absolute certainty beyond hope of its realization. To not hope for the salvation of all, especially since we are commanded to love even our enemies, seems very un-Christian to me.

I think you confuse two things here: a hope that everyone is saved (which is certainly a mark of a Christian), and universalism, which argues that everyone will be saved. It its only the latter that its seriously and morally wrong. But hope? Yeah of course.

[Hilarion]

I think you confuse two things here: a hope that everyone is saved (which is certainly a mark of a Christian), and universalism, which argues that everyone will be saved. It its only the latter that its seriously and morally wrong. But hope? Yeah of course.

The implication of certainty in universalism is extraneous. As Kallistos Ware notes, "Origen's apocatastasis is not simply a deduction from some abstract system; it is a hope." He also hypothesizes that Gregory of Nyssa was not condemned because he dropped Origen's idea of the preexistence of the soul, while retaining his "hope in the eventual triumph of good over evil."

[Himster]

To be naturally opposed to christian universalism is pretty good evidence for psychopathy or perhaps a certain particularly sadistic personality.

At the end of the day, only God can decide.

[basics]

" To be naturally opposed to christian universalism is pretty good evidence for psychopathy or perhaps a certain particularly sadistic personality. At the end of the day, only God can decide. "

Himster,

Since we don't know who will be called and who won't, it is our duty to make the Gospel as universal as possible without fear or favour. But that doesn't mean we water the thing down in any way to improve our chances. Those that are called are called out to be a separate people from those left in the world and most assuredly that is solely God's work. Remember blessed are the feet of them that bring good news and that is all they can do, the rest being up to God.

I do not believe for one moment, and neither does Paul, that false gospels save anyone and of course they don't. So what is written in the word of God is truth and it is by that truth that men and women are saved, nothing else. So do we appeal to the secular nature or do we offend so that truth abounds? We stick to the Rock and nothing else no matter who is offended, why? Because the Gospel of Jesus Christ is an offence to the unregenerate. That is love.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

To be naturally opposed to christian universalism is pretty good evidence for psychopathy or perhaps a certain particularly sadistic personality.

At the end of the day, only God can decide.

Augustinian (Western) Christianity adopts an inverted form of apocatastasis which denies free will in its most extreme aspects and makes everything an aspect of an all pervading Grace that is not subject to any actions in this life. So, I would say that if they were to adopt a Gnostic intrusion, then Origen's Gnosticism would be much better than Augustine's brand of it .

Yes, hope for universal salvation is the most we can aspire to; but the reality is that God only knows whether some will be subject to eternal estrangement from His love. At some point, I think, we must accept the final authority of the divine mystery which lies beyond our comprehension, and nothing about universalism can be stated with absolute certainty beyond hope of its realization. To not hope for the salvation of all, especially since we are commanded to love even our enemies, seems very un-Christian to me.

The ultimate fact is that God will cast no one into the Fires.