Universal Salvation in Orthodoxy?

[salve]

I recently read this on the web and I was wondering if Orthodoxy teaches Universal Salvation? I thought this was condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council but I see it often on Orthodox Websites and Forum and I was just curious what your thoughts were on the subject.

‘WHAT IS HELL?’

‘Fathers and teachers! I ask: What is Hell? I answer: Suffering on account of the impossibility to love any longer’. These are the words of Elder Zosima, Dostoyevsky’s celebrated monk in The Brothers Karamazov.

Why Hell? many people ask. Why does God condemn people to eternal damnation? How can the image of God the Judge be reconciled with the New Testament message of God as love? St Isaac the Syrian answers these questions in the following way: there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy. The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it.

It is therefore not God Who mercilessly prepares torments for a person, but rather the person himself who chooses evil and then suffers from its consequences. There are people who deliberately refuse to follow the way of love, who do evil and harm to their neighbours: these are the ones who will be unable to reconcile themselves with the Supreme Love when they encounter it face to face. Someone who is outside of love during his earthly life will not find a way to be inside it when he departs from the body. He will find himself in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’ (Ps.23:4), ‘the darkness’ and ‘the land of forgetfulness’ (Ps.88:12), of which the psalms speak. Jesus called this place, or rather this condition of the soul after death, ‘the outer darkness’ (Matt.22:13) and ‘the Hell of fire’ (Matt.5:22).

One should note that the notion of Hell has been distorted by the coarse and material images in which it was clothed in Western medieval literature. One recalls Dante with his detailed description of the torments and punishment which sinners undergo. Christian eschatology should be liberated from this imagery: the latter reflects a Catholic medieval approach to the Novissima with its ‘pedagogy of fear’ and its emphasis on the necessity of satisfaction and punishment. Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel depicts Christ hurling into the abyss all those who dared to oppose Him. ‘This, to be sure, is not how I see Christ’, says Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov). ‘...Christ, naturally, must be in the centre, but a different Christ more in keeping with the revelation that we have of Him: Christ immensely powerful with the power of unassuming love’. If God is love, He must be full of love even at the moment of the Last Judgment, even when He pronounces His sentence and condemns one to death.

For an Orthodox Christian, notions of Hell and eternal torments are inseparably linked with the mystery that is disclosed in the liturgical services of Holy Week and Easter, the mystery of Christ’s descent into Hell and His liberation of those who were held there under the tyranny of evil and death. The Church teaches that, after His death on the Cross, Christ descended into the abyss in order to annihilate Hell and death, and destroy the horrendous kingdom of the Devil. Just as Christ had sanctified the Jordan, which was filled with human sin, by descending into its waters, by descending into Hell He illumined it entirely with the light of His presence. Unable to tolerate this holy invasion, Hell surrendered: ‘Today Hell groans and cries aloud: It had been better for me, had I not accepted Mary’s Son, for He has come to me and destroyed my power; He has shattered the gates of brass, and as God He has raised up the souls that once I held’... In the words of St John Chrysostom, ‘Hell was embittered when it met Thee face to face below. It was embittered, for it was rendered void. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was despoiled. It was embittered, for it was fettered’. This does not mean that in the wake of Christ’s descent into it, Hell no longer exists. It does exist but is already sentenced to death. my source (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#53)

Thanks Salve.

[Jebediah]

Not exactly. We just pray for everyone, with the hope that all may be saved, and the belief that they may be so. Have you heard our litanies? We pray for everyone, and even pray for the souls in hell at Pentecost. Since we believe in intercessory prayer, and have whole armies of full time prayer warriors (monks, nuns, etc) and lots of strong part time prayer warriors in the clergy and laity, we hope that literally there will be no one in hell in the end. At least, I hope that :thumbsup: . As to the condemnation of universalism...it was Origen's teachings which involved an absolute universal salvation, pre-existent souls, and no action of free will in salvation (we would be saved without prayer or anything else).

Bishop Kallistos Ware has an article on this in "The Inner Kingdom" that is very good.

[choirfiend]

No, this has nothing to do with Universal Salvation.

What it does expound upon is the Orthodox understanding of a loving God and what heaven and hell are. (PS. The article also is talking about Hades/Sheol, which is something different than Hell...Too bad its usually equated in most English translations of the Scriptures).

As the article states, hell is not a place God created to throw people. God desires that all men should live. A Loving God (or the One who IS Love) does not hand out eternal torment.

In the Orthodox understanding, Hell is self-made. God is all Love. For those who hate God and His Love, the presence of God is torment. Just like if you really hated, say, your third grade teacher, even if s/he loved you, being in their presence is intolerable, and made even more so the more they try to love you, be with you, serve you, etc. For those who do not repent and hate God, (in heart and actions) the all-consuming fire of God will not be warming, cheering, enlightening; it will be tormenting, roasting, anguish.

This is not because God torments--it is based on one's response to God, who is changeless.

There's lots more out there on this idea, better and more fully said than I just explained it. Maybe someone can point you to a resource.

That said, the article is not dealing with Universal Salvation (which might be a hope of some Orthodox, but is not a doctrine and the idea that God HAS to "save" everyone is anathema; we don't believe in predestination and we DO believe in the free will to reject or accept God.). It IS dealing with the fact that the possibility of salvation is open to all men, and it is dealing with Christ defeating Hades and death for all men. Those who wish to embrace life are now able to do so because of Christ.

[salve]

Thanks a lot for your thoughts.

God Bless salve.

[Akathist]

I am a bit confused regarding the coment that the 5th Ecumenical Council had anything to do with condemnation of Universal Salvation.

We have some very learned members here in TAW, could someone enlighten me?

Where was this addressed in this council?

I thought that council addressed Nestorianism and the Monophyte heresy's.

Is there a different coucil taht addressed Universal Salvation? (I ask because it was my understanding that no council has addressed this issue.)

[salve]

I am a bit confused regarding the coment that the 5th Ecumenical Council had anything to do with condemnation of Universal Salvation.

We have some very learned members here in TAW, could someone enlighten me?

Where was this addressed in this council?

I thought that council addressed Nestorianism and the Monophyte heresy's.

Is there a different coucil taht addressed Universal Salvation? (I ask because it was my understanding that no council has addressed this issue.)

Salve!

The anathamas of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople held in 553. From "The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian against Origen":

IX. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (apokatastasis) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

[Akathist]

Salve!

The anathamas of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople held in 553. From "The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian against Origen":

IX. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (apokatastasis) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

Thank you. I must have read the OP wrong, I saw 5th, not 2nd and when I went to research, I only went looking for the 5th. I am still learning the content of the counsils and have to look things up a great deal.

I am very glad to have this post to help me as I study.

[salve]

Thank you. I must have read the OP wrong, I saw 5th, not 2nd and when I went to research, I only went looking for the 5th. I am still learning the content of the counsils and have to look things up a great deal.

I am very glad to have this post to help me as I study.

Salve!

Well the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople 'was' the 5th Ecumencial Council in toto.

[Akathist]

Salve,

No, the Second Ecumenical Counsel is the Second Ecumenical Counsel.

We are EO here. I don't know what your faith is, but for EO's, the Second Ecumenical Counsel is the Second one.

An Ecumencial Counsel is not the only counsel that can be called. Ecumenical Councils are councils in which ALL of the Patriarchs gather to pray and through the working of the Holy Spirit to set things right for the whole Church.

There are smaller councils to deal with local problems with the growth of heresy or other issues. They are not Ecumenical in that they do not involve all of the Patriarchs. Usually they involve a visiting Patriarch from another Jurisdiction but that does not make them Ecumenical. To have that classification, all Patriarchs would be involved. Ecumenical Counsels have primarily been called to address the widespread growth of heresy. (I think they have only been called to address widespread growth of heresy: that is heresy effecting several jurisdictions.)

(I welcome the correction of more educated EO members as I am still learning about this subject. Detailed study of the Councils was not a part of my catechism, though I did briefly study each.)

[choirfiend]

He is saying that Constantinople II (the 5th ecumenical council) was the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. See?

[Akathist]

Thanks choirfiend, I guess I never really cared where the councils were held so never considered that was what he was saying.

I still could not find the anethema's quoted in my research of the 5th EC. I could not even see a reference to Universal Salvation (or this idea using different terms.)

That does not mean they are not there. It probably means I do not know where to find them.

[Oblio]

I think it is best to call the ECs by their sequence among all, rather than within a particular location, unless of course it is needed to clarify a point. JMHO, YMMV.

[ThePilgrim]

Universal salvation has been condemned, not only by this council, but by numerous saints (See St John Climacus' "The Ladder", among others).

That doesn't mean that there are people that we can't pray for.

But to say that all *will* be saved is to deny free will. The choice is real, not imaginary.

Grace and peace,
John

[Akathist]

Universal salvation has been condemned, not only by this council, but by numerous saints (See St John Climacus' "The Ladder", among others).

That doesn't mean that there are people that we can't pray for.

But to say that all *will* be saved is to deny free will. The choice is real, not imaginary.

Grace and peace,
John

That puts a piece in place in my puzzle about those anethema's.

The anethema about the impious man is for an unrepentant man.

Ok, now I get it. Thanks.

[Grigorii]

I am a bit confused regarding the coment that the 5th Ecumenical Council had anything to do with condemnation of Universal Salvation.

We just covered this topic in class the other day. The professor suggested that Universalism is not necessarily condemned as a heresy. The Universalism of St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, is still a viable option. He also told us that the general weight of Tradition is against Universalism. Which means that the majority in the Church do not accept this doctrine. But in and of itself, I would say, this is not conclusive. Between 325 and 381 Arianism and homoiousianism were the majority position. The Nicene Faith was a minority position. The professor ended on the note that Universal Salvation is not necessarily heretical, but it is not representative of the consensus Orthodox teaching either.

Where was this addressed in this council?

It wasn't addressed by this particular council. It's been the subject of Local Councils, for example the one in Alexandria where Bishop Demetrius had his former catechist Origen condemned. It was also used to condemn and ultimately depose St. John Chrysostom at a Council directed by St. Theophilus of Alexandria.

I thought that council addressed Nestorianism and the Monophyte heresy's.

It dealt more specifically with Monophysitism, and restored two Nestorians to communion (Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, later condemned at the 6th Ec. Council). What it did not do, is discuss Universal Salvation nor even Origenism in general. The 15 anathemas against Origenism are from the hand of Emperor Justunian. They were not endorsed by the 5th Council nor voted upon. They were, however, included in the Acts of the Council at a later time. The 11th genuine anathema features Origen's name, but this too is of uncertain pedigree. Origen's name does not fit the category of heretics mentioned, and the position of his name breaks the chronological order. This could indicate that the anathema was 'doctered up' to get an official condemnation on Origen's name.

Given the trouble that extreme Origenism was causing, and given the increasingly bad reputation of Origen, as well as Justinian's profound dislike of Origen, it is (I believe) very much possible that measures were taken to put Origenism down. Forgering documents was not necessarily a problem to achieve ones goal. The goal sometimes sanctified the means. It is not even necessarily perceived as forgery at the time, it is a complicated matter which is not sufficiently studied (yet).


Is there a different coucil taht addressed Universal Salvation? (I ask because it was my understanding that no council has addressed this issue.)

Yes, there were several Local Councils that addressed it, and condemned it. But exactly what was condemned is not easy to determine. In general it is advisable to follow Bishop Kallistos' assessment that Universal Salvation is possible when free-will is preserved. Once it leads to denial of free-will you've crossed over into heresy.

Grigorii

[Akathist]

The professor ended on the note that Universal Salvation is not necessarily heretical, but it is not representative of the consensus Orthodox teaching either.



This is exactly what I have been taught myself, though I am only a layperson, not in a formal class. It is the position I take. On this subject, I sit on the fense and say that I do not need to know how God has the after life set up. I need to focus on my own theosis and in sharing my faith as clearly as I can.

thornygrace

[salve]

Salve!

Would any of you agree with what I found worthy of note in Dogmatic Orthodox Theology by Fr. Michael Pomazansky and his comments on Dogma and Canons:

For guidance in questions of faith, for the correct understanding of Sacred Scripture, and in order to distinguish the authentic Tradition of the Church from false teachings, we appeal to the works of the holy Fathers of the Church, acknowledging that the unanimous agreement of all the Fathers and teachers of the Churchin teaching of the Faith is an undubted sign of truth.

He later speaks on private opinions of the holy Fathers of the Church, like those of Origen, Clement of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nyssa (in particular):

In theology, attention is also given to certain private opinions (theologoumena) of the holy Fathers or teachers of the Church on questions which have not been precisely defined and accepted by the whole Church. However, these opinions are not to be confused with dogmas, in the precise meaning of the word. There are some private opinions of certain Fathers and teachers which are not recognized as being in agreement with the general catholic faith of the Church, and are not accepted as a guide to faith.

As an example of such "private opinions," one may take the mistaken opinion of St. Gregory of Nyssa that hell is not everlasting and that all - including demons - are to be saved in the end. This opinion was rejected decisively at the Fifth ecumenical Council as contradicting the Church's "catholic consciousness," but St. Gregory himself is still accepted as a saint and a Holy Father in the Orthodox Church and his other teachings are not questioned.

What are your thoughts? Was the 5th Ecumenical Council decisive in it's opinion of 'universalism' or is it that this heretical view is coming back into vogue?

For my opinion, I'd have to say that these appear, on first blush, to be in stark opposition to the truth revealed by our Lord and Savior:

He passed through towns and villages, teaching as he went and making his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, "Lord, will only a few people be saved?" He answered them, "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough. After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying, 'Lord, open the door for us.' He will say to you in reply, "I do not know where you are from.' And you will say, 'We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets.' Then he will say to you, 'I do not know where you are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers!' And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out. And people will come from the east and the west and the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last." - Luke 22-30

Sobering to say the least...

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you? And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer then, “Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” - Matthew 25:31-46

If the 'eternal punishment' outlined by our Lord is temporary then the 'eternal life' must also be temporary also as to interpret it any other way would fail to be consistent. I believe such an interpretation is no a true grasp of Christ’s Gospel and thus must be understood to be an error of ‘wishful thinking’ on the part of our early Church Fathers who grasped for ‘universal salvation’ through the ‘universal justification’. I do not hold that such ‘must’ be understood as a ‘demonic’ influence, as some might assert, but I do hold that such is an error in understanding ‘fully’ the Revelation of God through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

[Akathist]

As stated above, personal opinions on this subject is allowed within Orthodoxy, at least to a degree.

I can not think of how else to answer your question other than to repeat this fact.

[Grigorii]

Fr. Sergius Bulgakov writes:

In Christian eschatology the question is always present of those sent into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. From most ancient times doubts have existed as to the eternal duration of these torments; they are sometimes viewed as a provisional pedagogic method of influencing the soul, and a final restoration is hoped for. From earliest times there have been two tendencies in eschatology: the rigorist affirms that the suffering is eternal, definitive and without end; the other, which Augustine ironically calls the "pitiful" ("misericordes"), denies that eternity of punishment and the persistence of evil in creation, and proclaims the final victory of the Kingdom of God, when "God shall be all in all."

The doctrine of the restoration is not only that of Origen, of whom Orthodoxy is doubtful because of certain of his opinions, but also of St. Gregory of Nyssa, glorified by the Church as Doctor, and his disciples. It has hitherto been thought that the doctrine of Origen was condemend at the fifth Ecumenical Council, but recent historical studies do not permit us to affirm this. As to the doctrines of St. Gregory, developed much later, and free from Origen's theories on the preexistence of souls, they have never been condemned. Consequently they have the right to be quoted in the Church, at least as theological opinions ("theologoumena").

It is true that the prevailing opinion among many Orthodox dogmatic manuels does not go as far as the idea of "restoration," sometimes even expressing ideas near to the rigor of Catholicism. On the other hand, certain thinkers have professed and still profess ideas influenced by the doctrine of St. Gregory of Nyssa, or, in any case, more complex than the ordinary rigorist view. It may thus be foreseen that this question will be restudied many times, and that it will eventually be made clear in new light sent to the Church by the Holy Spirit. In any case. no rigorist view can take from us the hope afforded in the triumphant words of St. Paul: "God has shut all men up in rebellion, that He might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom. 11, 32-33)."

(Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, ch. 16; emphasis mine)

Grigorii

[salve]

Fr. Sergius Bulgakov writes:

In Christian eschatology the question is always present of those sent into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. From most ancient times doubts have existed as to the eternal duration of these torments; they are sometimes viewed as a provisional pedagogic method of influencing the soul, and a final restoration is hoped for. From earliest times there have been two tendencies in eschatology: the rigorist affirms that the suffering is eternal, definitive and without end; the other, which Augustine ironically calls the "pitiful" ("misericordes"), denies that eternity of punishment and the persistence of evil in creation, and proclaims the final victory of the Kingdom of God, when "God shall be all in all."

The doctrine of the restoration is not only that of Origen, of whom Orthodoxy is doubtful because of certain of his opinions, but also of St. Gregory of Nyssa, glorified by the Church as Doctor, and his disciples. It has hitherto been thought that the doctrine of Origen was condemend at the fifth Ecumenical Council, but recent historical studies do not permit us to affirm this. As to the doctrines of St. Gregory, developed much later, and free from Origen's theories on the preexistence of souls, they have never been condemned. Consequently they have the right to be quoted in the Church, at least as theological opinions ("theologoumena").

It is true that the prevailing opinion among many Orthodox dogmatic manuels does not go as far as the idea of "restoration," sometimes even expressing ideas near to the rigor of Catholicism. On the other hand, certain thinkers have professed and still profess ideas influenced by the doctrine of St. Gregory of Nyssa, or, in any case, more complex than the ordinary rigorist view. It may thus be foreseen that this question will be restudied many times, and that it will eventually be made clear in new light sent to the Church by the Holy Spirit. In any case. no rigorist view can take from us the hope afforded in the triumphant words of St. Paul: "God has shut all men up in rebellion, that He might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom. 11, 32-33)."

(Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, ch. 16; emphasis mine)

Grigorii

Salve!

You appear to be attempting 'guilt by association' with your assertion that this position is somehow 'Roman Catholic' in nature. I'm curious would you catagorize Jesus as a 'rigorist'? How about the Apostle John? When I reflect on some of this stuff I remember verses like our Apostle Paul who asked the Corinthians:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of GOD?" - I Corinthians 6:9.

Throughout the Bible 'eternal punishment' is mentioned; how do you reconcile the contradictions such opinions "theologoumena" have with His testimony?

PS: you mentioned that you've been studying this topic recently... What Seminary are you currently attending?

Thanks for all the info.

[Grigorii]

Salve!

You appear to be attempting 'guilt by association' with your assertion that this position is somehow 'Roman Catholic' in nature. I'm curious would you catagorize Jesus as a 'rigorist'? :o

I am attempting nothing other but to state what the range of thought on the subject is in the Orthodox Church. Also, I quote a passage from Fr. Bulgakov's The Orthodox Church the Catholics he refers to are the ones he debated in his other works. All written pre-Vatican II.

Throughout the Bible 'eternal punishment' is mentioned; how do you reconcile the contradictions such opinions "theologoumena" have with His testimony?

There is no contradiction. As you may be aware, the word eternal in Scripture can mean a range of things. Not necessarily unlimited duration of time. In fact it can be a qualification of something. Such as the eternal fire on Jerusalem prophesied by St. Jeremiah which was replaced with grace at a later date.

PS: you mentioned that you've been studying this topic recently... What Seminary are you currently attending?

I am attending an Orthodox Seminary. Why?

Thanks for all the info.

No problem;)

Grigorii

[salve]

I am attempting nothing other but to state what the range of thought on the subject is in the Orthodox Church. Also, I quote a passage from Fr. Bulgakov's The Orthodox Church the Catholics he refers to are the ones he debated in his other works. All written pre-Vatican II.



There is no contradiction. As you may be aware, the word eternal in Scripture can mean a range of things. Not necessarily unlimited duration of time. In fact it can be a qualification of something. Such as the eternal fire on Jerusalem prophesied by St. Jeremiah which was replaced with grace at a later date.



I am attending an Orthodox Seminary. Why?



No problem;)

Grigorii
Sorry for not visiting sooner, we had a recent illness in the family which took presedence.

It is plain to me from the Bible that sin will be punished (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 10:15; John 5:28-29; Rom. 5:12-21), and the duration of this punishment is sometimes expressed in the NT by the use of aion or one of its derivatives. (i.e. Matt. 18:8; 25:41, 46; 2 Thess. 1:9). Aion means "old age", and it was used of the never-ending "age to come," which gave to the corresponding adjective aionion the meaning "eternal," "ever-lasting." These words are used of "the King eternal" (1 Tim. 1:17), of "the eternal God" (Rom. 11:36) and God is blessed "forever" (2 Cor. 11:31). The concept of endless duration could not be more strongly conveyed; the use of these expressions for the eternity of God shows conclusively that they do not mean limited duration. It is important that the same adjective is used of eternal punishment as of eternal life (Matt. 25:46 has both). The punishment is just as eternal as the life. One is no more limited than the other scripturally speaking.

A similar idea is conveyed by the use of other terminology. Thus, Jesus said, "It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out" (Mark 9:43; cf. Luke 3:17). He referred to "hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched;" (Mark 9:47-48). He spoke of fearing God because he, "after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell" (Luke 12:5). He said that there is a sin that "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32). Similarly John writes, "Whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him" (John 3:36). The awful finality of Christ's warnings implies permanence. He spoke of the door being shut (Matt. 25:10), of being "thrown outside, into the outer darkness" (Matt. 8:12; "thrown out." Luke 13:28), of an impassable chasm (Luke 13:28). It is not always realized that Jesus spoke of hell more often than did anyone else in the NT. And nowhere is there a hint of any possible reversal of the last judgment.

I was interested in which seminary you attended. Some Orthodox Seminaries, particularly, ones in American push a particular 'liberal' prespective on Orthodox Theology (read anti-atonement here). So which one is it that you attend?

[NyssaTheHobbit]

This very subject--the meaning of "eternal," what is Hell--first attracted me to Orthodox teaching. I'm used to hearing that any form of universalism is a demonic lie. In the Presbyterian church, on the other hand, we're allowed more freedom of opinion; some people are universalists, and some "official" views sound more like Orthodoxy.

[buzuxi02]

In Orthodoxy, Death was never the punishment for Adam and Eve by God. We dont die because we sin, we sin because we die (1 cor 15.56 Rom 6.7). Death is the enemy of God, and hell (gehenna fire) is the place God has reserved for death (1 Cor 15.26, Rev 20.24). For an Orthodox christian, Jesus has already saved us from death it no longer reigns.
For the wicked, they too have eternal life but due to the severity of their sins may be seperated from the prescense of God. Sin is missing the mark , the more we sin the greater the seperation, this great gulf between us and the "mark" (God) is only remedied thru a struggle of living the gospel and the Mercy of God.

[Tube Socks Dude]

The concept of endless duration could not be more strongly conveyed; the use of these expressions for the eternity of God shows conclusively that they do not mean limited duration.

If aionios always conclusively means eternal, it seems to me that when condemning apokatastasis, Justinian would not have had to say, "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aionios (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked."

Aionios by itself was not strong enough for Justinian to denote endless duration, so he had to use a word not found in Scripture. Justinian’s usage demonstrates that even as late as A.D. 540 aionios meant limited duration and required an unscriptural adjective to impart the force of endlessness to punishment. From that time forward, most of the Church has obeyed Justinian's imperial command to place the definition of ateleutetos on top of aionios (at least when dealing with the laity).

I had a lengthy debate with a fellow on the topic of aion and its cognates back in early December of 2005. The whole thing can be found here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2382068-how-many-eternities-are-there-in-scripture.html

Maverick

[buzuxi02]

It is good to add the explanation of 1 COR 3.11-15 given by St Mark Evgenicus of Ephesus as he defended the Orthodox faith against the heresy of purgatory at the latin council of Florence.

(v 13) For the Day will declare it because it will be revealed by fire and the fire will test each ones work of what sort it is.

The 'Day" is the Second Coming ,the final judgement.

(v12) Now if anyone builds on this foundation with Gold, Silver, precious Stones, wood, hay, straw

St Mark explaining John Chrysostoms interpretation claims this is an eternal fire, that the gold, silver and precious stones signify the virtues. While wood, hay and straw are bad deeds. The bad deeds being burned in the fire but the gold, silver and precious stones do not burn but are refined. The foundation is divided into two parts (read v.14-15)

(v 15) If anyones work is burned he will suffer loss but he himself will be saved, yet so as as through fire.

The words 'saved, yet so as thru fire' means the preservation and continuance of the sinners existence while suffering punishment. St Mark further explains this punishment, the sinners "loss" is to be deprived of the divine light. The "day" is used in a special sense to denote the opposite of the present life which is 'night'.


(disclaimer not quoted in order and paraphrased)

[Tube Socks Dude]

The words 'saved, yet so as thru fire' means the preservation and continuance of the sinners existence while suffering punishment.

And pray tell, what word would best describe this continuance of existence while suffering punishment; aionios or ateleutetos? From what I read, Philo and Josephus used indisputable terms that left no doubt as to their meaning, such as “thanaton athanaton”, deathless or immortal death; “eirgmon aidion”, eternal imprisonment; “aidion timorion”, eternal torment; and “thanaton ateleuteton”, interminable death. The phrase "preservation and continuance of the sinner's existence while suffering punishment" also seems pretty clear as to its intended meaning. If neither the prophets, Jesus nor the apostles ever used such phrases, why should one take the view of Mark of Ephesus as anything more than just his own personal opinion?

Maverick

[gzt]

Tube Socks Dude - In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a Protestant forum. You're welcome to believe what you like, but claiming that "Jesus and the prophets never said it," doesn't have much truck here.

[Tube Socks Dude]

gzt, are you saying that the official dogmatic position of the Orthodox Church is that the answer to the initial thread topic question regarding "Universal Salvation in Orthodoxy" is an absolute and equivocal "no", and that to believe otherwise is Protestant and unorthodox? I may not Commune with the Orthodox anymore, but there have been others within Orthodoxy who have spoken out in favor of universalism, such as Berdyaev and Bulgakov. If the case were really closed, why was this thread already up to three pages before I posted?

[gzt]

No, I'm not saying anything about universalism. I'm not particularly interested in the topic. I'm making a comment about rhetoric. Since your faith icon does not indicate anything other than "Christian", I wanted to point out that, if you are not aware, this is an Orthodox forum and that claiming "neither the prophets, Jesus nor the apostles ever used such phrases" is not necessarily a valid reason to dismiss what St. Mark of Ephesus said at a later date as "only a personal opinion" according to the Orthodox. Just fyi.

I should also point out that claiming the endorsement of Berdyaev and Bulgakov is not likely to score points here, either. That's just an observation about the crowd in this forum.

Again, I'm saying nothing at all about universalism here.

[buzuxi02]

The position of ST Mark of Ephesus is the official teaching on the verses describes above. This is why St Mark is oneof the 'pillars of Orthodoxy' along with St Photius and St Gregory Palamas.
Universalism is a modernist opinion already condemned, Modernist and ecumenists simply trying to "uncover" an Orthodox purgatory, that gehena fire is a cathartic fire is the same as the latin purgatory except one occurs immediately after death while the other after the second coming. This is a compromise that the ecumenists can use in order for a false union between the latins and the Orthodox, council of florence re-visited

[Tube Socks Dude]

I'm making a comment about rhetoric.

The person who started this thread has a faith icon just like mine. Take a look back at their last post from June 3. They begin by giving a biased Greek lesson on the word aion and its cognates. Their post begins with the phrase "It is plain to me from the Bible". After a lengthy interpretation of Scipture (as well as any Protestant could muster), they end by giving their opinion on how Orthodox Seminaries in America push a liberal perspective. That's not rhetoric? Practically the whole post is rhetoric, yet no one raised an eyebrow or pointed out their faith icon or reminded them that this is an Orthodox forum.

[Tube Socks Dude]

I thank you all for your hospitality. I intend to exit the discussion. However, before I go, I would like to provide food for thought for anyone in Orthodoxy who secretly hopes for apokatastasis/universalism. The person who started this thread deemed it fit to provide their view of how aion and its cognates should be translated. In response to that, my views will be demonstrated below:

In my opinoin, the phrase "ages of ages" is a Greek transliteration of a Hebraism expressing the superlative. Please note and compare the following word constructions from both Old and New Testaments.

Hebrew Expressions (Singular followed by Singular or Plural):

1. "Vanity of Vanities" (Ecclesiastes 1:2 Septuagint - mataiotis mataiotiton)

2. “Holiness of Holiness” (Ezekiel 48:12 - LXX hagion hagion) translated most holy.

3. “Heaven of Heavens” (1 Kings 8:27 - Septuagint ouranos tou ouranou)

4. “Holy of Holies” (Exodus 26:33 Septuagint - hagiou ton hagion)

5. “Lord of Lords” (Psalm 136:3/Septuagint 135:3 - kyrio ton kyrion)

Hebrew Expressions (Plural followed by Plural):

1. "Holies of Holies" I Kings 8:6 (Septuagint - eis ta hagia ton hagion)

2. "Heavens of Heavens" Psalm 148:4 (Septuagint - ouranoi ton ouranon)

Greek Expressions (Singular followed by Singular)

1. Age of the age (aiona tou aionos): Hebrews 1:8

Greek Expressions (Singular followed by Plural):

1. “King of Kings” (Revelation 17:14)

2. “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5)

3. Age of ages (aionos ton aionon): Ephesians 3:21

Greek Expressions (Plural followed by Plural):

1. "Holies of Holies" (hagia hagion) (Hebrews 9:3)

2. In Hebrews 9, Nestle reads (margin v. 25) (eis ta hagia ton hagion) "into the holies of the holies"

3. “Ages of Ages” (aionas ton aionon) (Revelation 14:11; 20:10)

The above list shows that constructions using the word aion and its cognates refer to the superlative. The expression “ages of ages” is just like "holies of holies" and "heavens of heavens". In Revelation it refers to the most important or grandest ages of created time. The stress is qualitative, not quantitative. Given the fact that both "aionas" and "aionon" are in their plural, if one wanted to translate the Greek word "aion" as "ever," AND stay true to the Greek forms of speech, they should have rendered it as "for evers and evers” or “eternities of eternities”. If the created aions of time and space are not different from the uncreated timelessness of eternity, then how could one explain the use of the phrase "pro chronos aionios" in Scripture?

If one wishes to remain hopeful that punishment lasts forever, until God wills it to end, please note the following:

Habakkuk says the mountains that were "everlasting", until they "were shattered" Hab. 3 3:6).

The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Ex. 40:15), until it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever", until the tenth generation (Deut.23.3)

The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16), until Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Heb. 4:8,9).

The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8), until in the New Covenant, the first was "done away" (2 Corinthians 3:11,13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

Jonah went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars against him forever, until God brought up his life from corruption on the third day. (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17);

Israel's "affliction is incurable" (Jer. 30:12), until the Lord "will restore health" and heal her wounds (Jer. 30:17).

The sin of Samaria "is incurable" (Mic. 1:9), until the Lord "will restore the fortunes of Samaria." (Ez. 16:53).

The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be "perpetual", until Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for sins, and we now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12-13, Heb. 8:6-13).

In chapter 15, Philemon is instructed to receive Onesimus "forever" (aionios), that is until the end of his earthly life/aion.

[salve]

If aionios always conclusively means eternal, it seems to me that when condemning apokatastasis, Justinian would not have had to say, "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aionios (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked."

Salve Tube Socks Dude,

Actually I never stated that aionios 'always conclusively means eternal' I stated:

"It is important that the same adjective is used of eternal punishment as of eternal life (Matt. 25:46 has both). The punishment is just as eternal as the life. One is no more limited than the other scripturally speaking."

That is 'big difference' in my humble opinion.


Aionios by itself was not strong enough for Justinian to denote endless duration, so he had to use a word not found in Scripture. Justinian’s usage demonstrates that even as late as A.D. 540 aionios meant limited duration and required an unscriptural adjective to impart the force of endlessness to punishment. From that time forward, most of the Church has obeyed Justinian's imperial command to place the definition of ateleutetos on top of aionios (at least when dealing with the laity).

I had a lengthy debate with a fellow on the topic of aion and its cognates back in early December of 2005. The whole thing can be found here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2382068-how-many-eternities-are-there-in-scripture.html

Maverick

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Peace.

[salve]

The person who started this thread has a faith icon just like mine. Take a look back at their last post from June 3. They begin by giving a biased Greek lesson on the word aion and its cognates. Their post begins with the phrase "It is plain to me from the Bible". After a lengthy interpretation of Scipture (as well as any Protestant could muster), they end by giving their opinion on how Orthodox Seminaries in America push a liberal perspective. That's not rhetoric? Practically the whole post is rhetoric, yet no one raised an eyebrow or pointed out their faith icon or reminded them that this is an Orthodox forum.

BTW, just because someone has a simple 'christian icon' doesn't mean that their Protestant. I'm not.

There is also a difference between 'opinion' and 'rhetoric'. I like to make sure people know that I am sharing 'opinions' on message boards like this one when I post. That doesn't mean I'm using 'rhetoric', it's means I'm honest about voicing my 'opinions'.

Peace.

[Silentchapel]

I know it is is a heresy to believe that all will be saved - but is it a sin and heresy to believe that all might be saved: through God's mercy, prayers of saints, so on and so forth?

[salve]

I know it is is a heresy to believe that all will be saved - but is it a sin and heresy to believe that all might be saved: through God's mercy, prayers of saints, so on and so forth?

From what I have read... I don't think so.

I'm not incline to believe such but I don't think the Church holds opposition against 'hope'.

Salve.

[The Virginian]

I know it is is a heresy to believe that all will be saved - but is it a sin and heresy to believe that all might be saved: through God's mercy, prayers of saints, so on and so forth?

:crosseo: If anything, The Incarnation teaches us that, redemption is possible for everyone, for Jesus came that "...all men might be saved."
It's a distortion of the mercy of God, the teaching of the Scriptures, the Holy Fathers, and the Church all for the sake and sensibilities of the religiously correct to say that all will be saved. One thing this does insidously, is take away free will from mankind, so that salvation is not a choice, and the command of God to "...be holy as I am holy....", is of no consequence. But hey, that's just my opinion, humble or otherwise.

:crosseo: a bondservant of :bow: The Lord!

[OnTheWay]

Universal salvation in forms that deny the ability of men to make their own choices are no compatible with Orthodoxy. Views on universalism that allow for all people to be able to chose God's love at some point are within the realm of theological opinions.

Issues of what God intends to do with the demons are beyond the scope of Orthodoxy.

[Akathist]

:crosseo: If anything, The Incarnation teaches us that, redemption is possible for everyone, for Jesus came that "...all men might be saved."
It's a distortion of the mercy of God, the teaching of the Scriptures, the Holy Fathers, and the Church all for the sake and sensibilities of the religiously correct to say that all will be saved. One thing this does insidously, is take away free will from mankind, so that salvation is not a choice, and the command of God to "...be holy as I am holy....", is of no consequence. But hey, that's just my opinion, humble or otherwise.

:crosseo: a bondservant of :bow: The Lord!

Universal salvation in forms that deny the ability of men to make their own choices are no compatible with Orthodoxy. Views on universalism that allow for all people to be able to chose God's love at some point are within the realm of theological opinions.

Issues of what God intends to do with the demons are beyond the scope of Orthodoxy.

I like being able to quote more than one post now!

I so agree with both of you!

[Teke]

Tube Socks Dude - In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a Protestant forum. You're welcome to believe what you like, but claiming that "Jesus and the prophets never said it," doesn't have much truck here.


I think one problem when speaking to our Protestant brothers on the Scriptures is that they really are wondering about what we really do believe about the Scriptures, their place in our lives etc.

It is often the case that we can get further ahead with Protestants by demonstrating how highly we do hold the cult of Scripture in our lives and in the life of our Church - this is something that is often, on the face of it, not self-evident to Protestants and even others.

It was Saint Dominic, I believe, whose tradition taught that the study of Scripture, in and of itself, is a type of worship and prayer.

St Parthenius of the Kyiv Caves Lavra referred to the meditation on Scripture as the "highest prayer."

And it is the best established monastic tradition of the Desert to even memorized the Gospels and the Psalms etc.

In my experience, I've found that once Protestants see that we are conversant with Scripture, that its living streams pulsate within our hearts and minds, that they will leave us alone or, even better, seek to join us!

And having been a former Protestant, with nothing but the scriptures for some 20 yrs. , what else but they (the scriptures) and God led me to the Church (Orthodoxy). :)

[Teke]

To the OP question.

Orthodoxy does not teach universal salvation. Orthodox are more naturalistic or ecological minded, meaning they see the natural order created.

I believe St Basil describes it best in "The Human Condition"(book title). As he relates on the subject of consumption. A natural occurence in the created order of things.

This agrees with scriptures proclamation of death being swallowed up in life. This is a basic occurence in the created order. So it also agrees with creation.

That humanity suffers from consumption, is the reason it needed the healing of God (Incarnation, Resurrection) to regenerate to life that which will stand all ages. ie. become eternal

[Akathist]

I think it is important to seperate the difference between "eternal life" and "salvation".

All have "eternal life" as Christ has conqured death by His death.

However, "salvation", to me at least, implies what we mean by "theosis" which is drawing ourselves closer and closer to purity and Truth as we seek to put our own selves aside and live only for Christ. In my opinion, the afterlife will be different for those who chose to seek Christ than for those who reject Him.

Salvation would be the positive result of this. "Damnation" would be the negative. (IN MY opinion.)

This is not the same as "universal salvation" that teaches that all will be in "heaven" (the positive).

Universal salvation is heresy (in my opinion) based on a number of bible verses. No doctrine of the Orthodox Church can contradict Scriptures as the Church historically has interpreted those scriptures.

When I was a "Protestant" I was taught by the particular churches I attended, that "eternal life" was granted only to those who were "saved" from death. I saw salvation and "eternal life" as the same thing. My thought of "hell" was that there one did not have "life" but still suffered. It was never really all that clear to me however.

[Orthocat]

One thing to keep in mind, being there once myself, is that Protestants spend most of their time analyzing, taking apart, dissecting, dissimulating, coagulating, conjugating, and constipating every jot and tittle of scripture.
Is this wrong? No, not necessarily. "Study to show yourselves approved". We would all do well to study as hard.

The question however, is not "will everyone be saved?" The one who states, "I know for a fact...." is certainly deceived, because we do not know who will be saved and who will not. The one that states, "the scriptures say this..." can also be deceived in his mind without teaching and tradition to uphold him, because the evil one can quote scripture and invade your mind.

Many of the holy fathers prayed for even the salvation of the fallen ones and Satan himself. Seems a little crazy huh? But they knew, it's not a matter of how long or who will be or how they would be - it's a matter of we should be praying for everyone and everything to know the glory and love of our Father.

Don't waste time in theological disputes as the scribes and pharisees. God is not found there.
Remember, one of the main differences between east and west - in the east a theologian is not someone who has dissected every word of scripture. A theologian to us is someone who has spent so much time in prayer and worship and communion with God that the light and love of God radiates from him/her.

It is good to study for exhortation and encouragement and teaching and correction. It is better to know God.

"universal salvation" - you can argue this until the cows come home and what have you accomplished?
But be careful - when you start saying "not everyone will be saved" then you may as well add, "because I am better than...."


Forgive me - I'm going back to sleep now...

[Ioan cel Nou]

One thing to keep in mind, being there once myself, is that Protestants spend most of their time analyzing, taking apart, dissecting, dissimulating, coagulating, conjugating, and constipating every jot and tittle of scripture.
Is this wrong? No, not necessarily. "Study to show yourselves approved". We would all do well to study as hard.

The question however, is not "will everyone be saved?" The one who states, "I know for a fact...." is certainly deceived, because we do not know who will be saved and who will not. The one that states, "the scriptures say this..." can also be deceived in his mind without teaching and tradition to uphold him, because the evil one can quote scripture and invade your mind.

Many of the holy fathers prayed for even the salvation of the fallen ones and Satan himself. Seems a little crazy huh? But they knew, it's not a matter of how long or who will be or how they would be - it's a matter of we should be praying for everyone and everything to know the glory and love of our Father.

Don't waste time in theological disputes as the scribes and pharisees. God is not found there.
Remember, one of the main differences between east and west - in the east a theologian is not someone who has dissected every word of scripture. A theologian to us is someone who has spent so much time in prayer and worship and communion with God that the light and love of God radiates from him/her.

It is good to study for exhortation and encouragement and teaching and correction. It is better to know God.

"universal salvation" - you can argue this until the cows come home and what have you accomplished?
But be careful - when you start saying "not everyone will be saved" then you may as well add, "because I am better than...."


Forgive me - I'm going back to sleep now...

Now I don't need to post. You've said it all for me.

James

[Teke]

The point of studying scripture is not to prove universal salvation. (Tho some might think it is.) It is to better relate the truths of God to others in an effective manner. ie. verbal communication

Universal salvation is a misleading concept. Only by knowing what one is truly desiring to look into, can it be addressed directly.

And to Orthodox, salvation is not micromanaged as it is by Protestants, who categorize (justification, sanctification, glorification) . Orthodox simply see it as a whole. Meaning synergism. And that being toward theosis.

What I've found in my studies and talking with christians in general. Is they all fall into one of two categories. They are either synergists, or monergists.

Synergism makes the most sense. Monergism has a lot of problems.

Then there is the fact that words like "universal salvation" are really another way of asking about "limited" and "unlimited" atonement.

Atonement is a uniquely English word. And it does not equate to salvation. Both have different meanings. So one would have to know what the person is specifically referring to in their understanding.

Otherwise you just can't make heads or tails out of where a person is coming from in their understanding.