Orthodoxy and the Heresy of Universalism

[Light of the East]

I have been pondering Orthodoxy of late. One thing that gives me pause is the present-day lack of resistance to the heresy of Universalism, and the promulgation of that heresy by Orthodox Christians. Specifically I have in mind David Bentley Hart's That All Shall Be Saved and Fr. Al Kimel's Destined for Joy: The Gospel of Universal Salvation.

It is clear that all orthodox Christians recognize that Universalism was a heresy which was definitively condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, and yet the Orthodox bishops seem content to let heretics like Hart and Kimel proceed unopposed. Kimel is even an Orthodox priest. What is going on here? Why are the bishops silent? And can Orthodoxy be said to maintain the ancient tradition of the faith if its bishops will not oppose uncontroversial heresies? It seems to me that this is one of the most pernicious heresies of our age, for it comes from the lips of secular wolves in sheep's clothing and has all the power of Caesar behind it. This is concerning and raises doubts in my mind about Orthodoxy.

Thanks for your thoughts,
-Zip

First of all, David Bentley Hart and Fr. Kimel are what are called "hard universalists." That is, there is absolutely no doubt, on the level of the fidelity of the Sacred Scriptures, that they believe that they are absolutely correct and this teaching is correct (and, I would suppose, they think it should be dogma).

Secondly, there is no official teaching of eschatology in Orthodoxy, other than what the Creed says, which is that He shall return in Judgment. That's it. No mention of either hell or heaven. Just the Judgment. +Bp Ware, and others I have read, have admitted this.

Thirdly, since there is no official eschatological teaching other than the sure return of Christ in the Creed, then, as our good Fr. Matt has told me, I am allowed to have a strong hope in Christ's Universal Salvation. What I am not allowed to do is to do what David Bentley Hart and Fr. Aiden are doing, and that is to teach it as unfailing dogma.

Fourthly, you are not to judge the truth of Orthodoxy by the errors of one or two, or even a dozen leaders in the Church. I say this as a recent convert myself who has a real problem with a very contentious teaching called "The Tollhouses." It has never been addressed as truth by a council, the Bible is dead silent on it, and the only possible support comes from Holy Tradition. Yet some people treat it as DBH and Fr. Aiden treat Universalism - settled dogma and you are a heretic if you don't embrace it. Orthodoxy is truth and my response is that I don't even bother thinking about Tollhouses. I have my hands quite full, thank you, with my own salvation and theosis, which is found in the Orthodox faith.

In short, IGNORE THEM!!!!

 

[Light of the East]

I can't deny that many seem overzealous.

Well, this Universalist keeps it to himself. First of all, I am in the Orthodox Church to LEARN and not to teach. And I have a lot to learn. Secondly, I don't wish to confuse or mislead people in my parish. Thirdly, I don't think that Fr. David would appreciate it one little bit, even though he knows that I hold to that hope.

 

[zippy2006]

First of all, David Bentley Hart and Fr. Kimel are what are called "hard universalists." That is, there is absolutely no doubt, on the level of the fidelity of the Sacred Scriptures, that they are correct and this teaching is correct (and, I would suppose, they think it should be dogma).

So you are saying that Hart is correct and UR is true, but that UR is not an Orthodox dogma. Am I understanding you?

 

[zippy2006]

In that case it should raise your doubts about most of Christianity altogether, since there are Christian universalists throughout Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism. Christian universalism is a side doctrine that any Christian from most any walk can hold. A Christian universalists can be completely in agreement with you regarding doctrine and theology, except for that one thing.

No, I think this is very confused. Universalism is a heresy, and Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and traditional Protestantism are not confused on this matter. Neither is it just "one thing." It destroys the entire Christian religion. It destroys the motive to evangelize, it cancels out the good news, it destroys Nicene Christology and Athanasius' position on Christ as eternal King, it contradicts the Bible, etc.

Are you Orthodox?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So you are saying that Hart is correct and UR is true, but that UR is not an Orthodox dogma. Am I understanding you?

no, Hart is not correct at all. there is a difference between hoping all will be saved, and saying all will be saved. DBH does the latter, which is formally condemned.

 

[Phronema]

which is formally condemned.

Father, would you care to expand on this, please?

When, and where was it formally condemned?

 

[Ceallaigh]

In Orthodoxy it's presumptuous to even consider yourself as saved.

"I trust by the grace of God, that I am being saved".

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not Orthodox, but I like Orthodoxy. I don't think I will ever become anything other than just a being a Christian. But really, that's up to the Lord.

This is a thread in the Orthodox sub-forum, "St. Basil the Great's Hall," the purpose of which is to, "Ask questions of Eastern Orthodox." I am wondering about the Orthodox perspective, which is why I posted here. You should not be answering questions here if you are not Orthodox.

 

[zippy2006]

no, Hart is not correct at all. there is a difference between hoping all will be saved, and saying all will be saved. DBH does the latter, which is formally condemned.

I guess I was trying to understand what @Light of the East was saying in that first paragraph of his response.

 

[Phronema]

I think this quote may be of some importance to the conversation. St. Gregory the Theologian has this to say from "Oration 40 - On Holy Baptism". The bolded portion is my doing.

Believe that for us sinners He was led to death; was crucified and buried, so far as to taste of death; and that He rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, that He might take you with Him who were lying low; and that He will come again with His glorious Presence to judge the quick and the dead; no longer flesh, nor yet without a body, according to the laws which He alone knows of a more godlike body, that He may be seen by those who pierced Him, Revelation 1:7 and on the other hand may remain as God without carnality. Receive besides this the Resurrection, the Judgment and the Reward according to the righteous scales of God; and believe that this will be Light to those whose mind is purified (that is, God — seen and known) proportionate to their degree of purity, which we call the Kingdom of heaven; but to those who suffer from blindness of their ruling faculty, darkness, that is estrangement from God, proportionate to their blindness here. Then, in the tenth place, work that which is good upon this foundation of dogma; for faith without works is dead, James 2:17 even as are works apart from faith. This is all that may be divulged of the Sacrament, and that is not forbidden to the ear of the many. The rest you shall learn within the Church by the grace of the Holy Trinity; and those matters you shall conceal within yourself, sealed and secure.


So, according to St. Gregory here hell is a state of being. In other words we're all in the presence of God, and His Light either is blissful, and comforting to us, or abhorrent, and hellish. Depending on how we perceive that Light, and how we perceive it is according to our closeness to Christ, and our repentance.

I may well be mistaken, and am in no place to be teaching anyone on the subject, but that's how it has been explained to me by priests I've conversed with on the issue.

Edit : I'd add that St. Basil the Great's Homily on Psalm 23 echoes this sentiment as well, but supposedly it has been found to be false, and not a genuine writing by St. Basil. I recall St. Maximos the Confessor talking about this somewhere as well, but I can't recall where I read it.

 

[Light of the East]

I guess I was trying to understand what @Light of the East was saying in that first paragraph of his response.

I was trying to identify DBH, nothing more. Fr. Matt is right. His position is not allowed in Orthodoxy. Even in the book I wrote, A LAYMAN INVESTIGATES UNIVERSAL SALVATION, at the very end I clarify that this what I found that gives me HOPE. I do not state that my discoveries mean it is Infallibily and positively true. This is the permitted position in the Orthodox Church.

 

[zippy2006]

I was trying to identify DBH, nothing more. Fr. Matt is right. His position is not allowed in Orthodoxy. Even in the book I wrote, A LAYMAN INVESTIGATES UNIVERSAL SALVATION, at the very end I clarify that this what I found that gives me HOPE. I do not state that my discoveries mean it is Infallibily and positively true. This is the permitted position in the Orthodox Church.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

I think an easy way to express your point is as follows: For Orthodoxy, it is possible that some will never be saved. For Hart, it is impossible that some will never be saved.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Father, would you care to expand on this, please?

When, and where was it formally condemned?

5th Ecumenical Council, 6th Ecumenical Council, 7th Ecumenical Council, the writings of St John Damascene, etc.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I guess I was trying to understand what @Light of the East was saying in that first paragraph of his response.

gotcha, I was just saying Hart is wrong

 

[ArmyMatt]

the Bible is dead silent on it,

not to derail, but technically this isn’t true.

 

[Light of the East]

So you are saying that Hart is correct and UR is true, but that UR is not an Orthodox dogma. Am I understanding you?

No, my wording in the first sentence is imprecise. I should have said "There is no doubt in their minds that Universalism is true. The way it reads now leads to the confusion you are having. Sorry. My bad.

 

[zippy2006]

No, my wording in the first sentence is imprecise. I should have said "There is no doubt in their minds that Universalism is true. The way it reads now leads to the confusion you are having. Sorry. My bad.

No worries, I understand what you were saying now.

 

[IoanC]

God wants that all are saved. This is not really universalism, but a sane attitude. The question is whether all want to be saved. I believe an orthodox answer is that we don't know if there are those who don't wish to be saved. So, hell is probably,so far, a permanent hypothesis. A hypothesis invented by the very ones who might reject God because doubt and fear would be advantageous to them and only them.

 

[Light of the East]

God wants that all are saved. This is not really universalism, but a sane attitude. The question is whether all want to be saved. I believe an orthodox answer is that we don't know if there are those who don't wish to be saved. So, hell is probably,so far, a permanent hypothesis. A hypothesis invented by the very ones who might reject God because doubt and fear would be advantageous to them and only them

hypothesis

hī-pŏth′ĭ-sĭs

noun​

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

Tentative explanation? That's not the way most people approach the teaching of eternal, conscious torment aka "hell." I would say that for the majority of those professing some form of the Christian faith, it is a settled issue with no room for doubt that it actually exists.

Also, I might be splitting hairs rather finely here, but 1 Timothy 2:4 is a little stronger than "want."

1Timothy 2:4
who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth;

It seems to me that there is a difference between wanting something (a fond desire, a wish) and willing something (it shall get done, period.) But again, perhaps splitting hairs here.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It seems to me that there is a difference between wanting something (a fond desire, a wish) and willing something (it shall get done, period.) But again, perhaps splitting hairs here.

it depends on if we are speaking of God’s ontological will, or His permissive will according to St Maximos.

both are true for this verse, by the way.