Universal restoration [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Jonathan Michael

21-12-2008, 03:34 PM

I have The Inner Kingdom with me now, and the chapter in which Bishop Kallistos talks about this subject is called "Dare we hope for the salvation of all?" I am under no doubt that Bishop Kallistos' answer to this question is "yes", we can, and perhaps even should, dare to hope for the salvation of all.

I highlighted the word "hope" for a reason. Bishop Kallistos is, I think, heavily influenced by the late Metropolitan Anthony of Sourzoh who also talked a lot on this subject; I think may Orthodox clergy from Western Europe are heavily influenced by Metropolitan Anthony. What the late Metropolitan says on the subject is that, as Christians, we should not say that everyone will be saved, because that is to go beyond what we know; nor we can say that everyone should be saved, because this would be to presume to have God's mind and judgement. However, as Christians, we can certainly hope for the salvation of all. I think Metropolitan Anthony called it an "Assurance of Hope", that as Christians we are given the freedom and power by God to hope for anything good, even the restoration of all creation (which may certainly seem very unlikely from our fallen state).

But it is a hope, based on faith in, and knowledge of, God, and the love that we are commanded to show everyone. Surely, if we love without boundaries, that means we must pray for the salvation of everyone, living or dead. I think it is within this specific frame of "hope", rather than dogma, that the subject of Universal Restoration is framed.

In fact, in The Inner Kingdom itself, Bishop Kallistos quotes with obvious approval Christian Barth (originally quoted in a work by Jaroslav Pelikan) who says: "Anyone who does not believe in the universal restoration is an ox, but whoever teaches it is an ***." It's true that the idea of universal restoration might cause scandal to many people, or worse, complacency in others, which is why Bishop Kallistos, and Metripolitan Anthony before him, are at pains to talk about the universal restoration in terms of "hope" rather than inevitability.

I will quote the last paragraph from the chapter under discussion (and the last paragraph of the entire book) if I may:

"Our belief in human freedom means that we have no right to categorically affirm, "All must be saved". But our faith in God's love makes us dare to hope all will be saved.

Is their anyone there? said the traveler,
Knocking on the moonlit door.

Hell exists as a possibility because free will exists. Yet trusting the inexhaustable attractiveness of God's love, we venture to express the hope - it is no more than a hope - that in the end, like Walter de la Mare's Traveller, we shall find that there is nobody there. Let us leave the last word, then, with St. Silouan of Mt. Athos: 'Love could nto bear that... We must pray for all.'"

Rick H.

21-12-2008, 03:46 PM

Yes, "a theology of hope."

Can anyone please tell me if this Metro. Anthony (mentioned above) is the same as Anthony Bloom? I think at this point I'm hoping that it is him.

If so, could anyone recommend a book to read by this man for me. Possibly, something of a primer to his work, if there is one.

Thank you.

Jonathan Michael

21-12-2008, 03:57 PM

Yes, it's the same Metropolitan Anthony. Memory Eternal! My misspelling of "Sourozh" probably didn't help.

The priest who received me into the Orthodox church used to be an Anglican vicar, and met the late Metropolitan Anthony before his own reception, and still talks with great affection of him. I am sure my priest could recommend some books by Metropolitan Anthony, and if no one replies in time I will contact him to see what he says.

*p.s. I just noticed that another word for "donkey" was asterixed out of my last post by the board's filter. That's quite funny.

Terry McGee

22-12-2008, 06:44 AM

Robert Hegwood

22-12-2008, 04:09 PM

I have to ask with regard to the last post, when did Greek Christians ever stop reading scripture in Greek?

With respect to the rest I must say that I am in general agreement with Jonathan's assessment in post #6.

The nail in the wall, the reference in Scripture upon which such a hope ultimately seems to hang is St. Paul's statement in I Cor. that "charity never faitheth". So if God is Love and love never fails then it seems reasonable to hold out hope in the end even for the most recalcitrant of God's fallen creatures. This hope of course exists in tension with freedom of the will which, so far as I understand the teaching of the Church, God refuses to overthrow by force or fiat.

I do think however it is the Orthodox position that the rest of creation will be healed and restored...the non-sentient bits.

Anna Stickles

22-12-2008, 04:15 PM

Just one of the many translational points being explored is the use of the word "aion" as meaning forever or unending. It has been pointed out that this word denotes an "age" and that it's plural forms shed doubt that it ever means eternal.

From the glossary in the Philokalia

"Frequently the distinction is made betwen the 'present age' and the 'age to come' or the 'new age'. The first corresponds to our present sense of time, the second to time to as it exists in God, that is eternity understood, not as endless time, but as the simultaneous presence of all time. Our present sense of time, according to which we experience time as sundered from God, is the consequence of the loss of vision and spiritual perception occasioned by the fall and is on this account more or less illusory. In reality time is not and never can be sundered from God, nor the 'present age' from the 'age to come'. Because of this the 'age to come' and it's realities must be thought of, not as non-existant or coming into existance in the future, but as actualities that by grace we can experience here and now. The Greek phrase for these realities (ta mellonta) is often translated 'blessings held in store'.

(ii) certain texts, especially in St Maximos the Confessor, also use the term aeon in a connected but more specific way, to denote a level intermediate between eternity in the full sense and time as known to us in our present experience....
There are thus three levels.
a) eternity, the totum simul or simultaneous presence of all time and reality as know to God, who alone has neither origin nor end, and who therefore is alone eternal in the full sense.
b) aeon - the totum simul as known to angels and to human persons who possess experience of the 'age to come' : although having no end, these angelic or human beings since they are created, are not self-orignating and therefore not eternal in the sense that God is eternal
c)time-that is temporal succession as known to us in the 'present age'

If this present age is going to come to an end and what is said here is true, then it seems that time, at least as we currently experience it -as a temporal succession of disconnected events - is an illusion occasioned by the Fall. Several of the mystics I have read talk about a Holy Present or an Eternal Now and I tend to personally think that to imagine eternity as equivalent to what comes to mind when we think "forever" is an illusary projection of the mind. We are projecting our current corrupted perception of our own existence and experiences as lasting forever -which whether we believe in hell or not, I do not think that we ought to accept this type of projection as being true.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

22-12-2008, 04:43 PM

The history suggests that:

The first comparatively complete systematic statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 180, contained the tenet of universal salvation.
The first complete presentation of Christianity (Origen, 220 A.D.) contained the doctrine of universal salvation.
The church taught it until AFTER the church departed from reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, substituting Latin in its stead several centuries after Christ's death.
Four out of six theological schools from 170 AD to 430 AD taught universal salvation while the only one that taught Hell was in Carthage, Africa, where Latin was the teaching language, not Greek.
Just one of the many translational points being explored is the use of the word "aion" as meaning forever or unending. It has been pointed out that this word denotes an "age" and that it's plural forms shed doubt that it ever means eternal.
Any insight or information you can share would be helpful.
Many thanks!

Dear Terry,

Thank you for this outline which is very useful in order to understand the issue at hand.

I would say that this provides a very good framework to look at this question of universal salvation. However universal salvation was never such a definitive teaching of the Church at large. We also need to keep in mind that it is very difficult to categorize universal salvation since it was not always thought of in the same terms by all. Perhaps though it would be better to for our understanding to put this question into its overall Church context.

The question of universal salvation actually comes from the Church's understanding and indeed teaching that all of creation's present involvement in sin and death will be resolved through Christ. This is a given and in this sense it is universal. At the End all things will stand in relation only to Christ.

However the critical question has always been concerning this force of sin & death which involves human free will. If all things are going to be resolved at the End in Christ then how does this relate to that sin & death which currently is opposed to this resolution of all things in Christ? This is a much more difficult question to come to grips with.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Paul Cowan

23-12-2008, 10:05 PM

Can someone please reconcile this scripture with what is being said about universal restoration?

Matthew 25:31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Fr Raphael Vereshack

23-12-2008, 10:42 PM

Can someone please reconcile this scripture with what is being said about universal restoration?

All things will be resolved in Christ according to their free will.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Paul Cowan

23-12-2008, 10:53 PM

Terry McGee

24-12-2008, 03:08 AM

Thank you all so very much for accepting me into this conversation as an outsider. I must begin by saying that I have come to believe that the restoration of all things is the ultimate goal of the gospel of Jesus Christ. My reasons for believing this are two-fold. First, the historical and translational evidence seems to, at the very least, leave the door open to this posibility. Secondly, and most importantly, I feel that this has been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit Himself. I don't presume to be any more connected to the Spirit than anyone else, but that many in every sector of Christianity are beginning to be shown the truth of this. I believe with all my heart that the teaching of an eternal Hell has lestened the weight of the gospel. It has altered our perception of the depth of God's love for us. We tend to emulate the character of God as we see it. Many atrocities are and have been committed in the name of religion.

The truth of God's love for us is that it is parental in nature and pure in motive. His rebukes are always corrective. The fire is sumbolic of a purifying force. Such as is described in 1 Corinthians 3:15

"If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Fr Raphael Vereshack

24-12-2008, 05:00 PM

But Father; to be restored and to be resolved are not the same thing. From what I read into this thread is some are purporting that all will be restored (saved and go to heaven) rather than all will be resolved and will end up where Judgement sends them. Am I reading this wrong?

Yes- there is this basic difference in interpretation. What a Father like St Maximus the Confessor speaks of for example is that resolution of all things in Christ but that we must freely be in accord with. This I think is the basic Orthodox understanding but along with all that is so difficult to understand for us right now.

For example much of this discussion centers, openly or not, on the condemnation of Origen's teachings on apokatastasis. For the Church I think the point of this condemnation is of an inevitable resolution of all things despite their own will. Or to say it in a pastoral way to rely on the absolute compassion of God no matter what one does. This the Church must condemn since it denies such a fundamental understanding of our responsiblity for sin.

Still though it is very difficult for us to reconcile the idea of the consequences of sin with our personal effort to acknowledge it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Jonathan Michael

24-12-2008, 05:16 PM

Can someone please reconcile this scripture with what is being said about universal restoration? [Matthew 25: 31-46]

"It remains spiritually impossible to talk of Hell for others. The theme of Hell can only be broached in the language of I and Thou. The threats in the Gospel concern me; they form the serious tragic element in my spiritual destiny; they prompt me to humility and repentance, because I recognize them as the diagnosis of my state. But for you, the numberless you of my neighbour, I can only serve, bear witness, and pray that you will experience the Risen Christ, and that you and everyone will be saved..."
- Oliver Clement

Anna Stickles

30-12-2008, 03:58 AM

For the Church I think the point of this condemnation is of an inevitable resolution of all things despite their own will. Or to say it in a pastoral way to rely on the absolute compassion of God no matter what one does.

What is the Church's position on Gregory of Nyssa's teaching in On the Soul and the Resurrection?

What then, would naturally be the plight of those bodies, when they were being dragged by relatives from the ruins to receive the holy rites of burial, mangled and torn entirely, disfigured in the most direful manner conceivable, with the nails beneath the heap harrowing them by the very violence necessary to pull them out?—Such I think is the plight of the soul as well when the Divine force, for God’s very love of man, drags that which belongs to Him from the ruins of the irrational and material. Not in hatred or revenge for a wicked life, to my thinking, does God bring upon sinners those painful dispensations; He is only claiming and drawing to Himself whatever, to please Him, came into existence. But while He for a noble end is attracting the soul to Himself, the Fountain of all Blessedness, it is the occasion necessarily to the being so attracted of a state of torture....

while evil is being consumed in the purgatorial fire, the soul that is welded to this evil must inevitably be in the fire too, until the spurious material alloy is consumed and annihilated by this fire. If a clay of the more tenacious kind is deeply plastered round a rope, and then the end of the rope is put through a narrow hole, and then some one on the further side violently pulls it by that end, the result must be that, while the rope itself obeys the force exerted, the clay that has been plastered upon it is scraped off it with this violent pulling and is left outside the hole, and, moreover, is the cause why the rope does not run easily through the passage, but has to undergo a violent tension at the hands of the puller. In such a manner, I think, we may figure to ourselves the agonized struggle of that soul which has wrapped itself up in earthy material passions, when God is drawing it, His own one, to Himself, and the foreign matter, which has somehow grown into its substance, has to be scraped from it by main force, and so occasions it that keen intolerable anguish.
Then it seems, I said, that it is not punishment chiefly and principally that the Deity, as Judge, afflicts sinners with; but He operates, as your argument has shown, only to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness.

That, said the Teacher, is my meaning; and also that the agony will be measured by the amount of evil there is in each individual. For it would not be reasonable to think that the man who has remained so long as we have supposed in evil known to be forbidden, and the man who has fallen only into moderate sins, should be tortured to the same amount in the judgment upon their vicious habit; but according to the quantity of material will be the longer or shorter time that that agonizing flame will be burning; that is, as long as there is fuel to feed it. ....

But whenever the time come that God shall have brought our nature back to the primal state of man, it will be useless to talk of such things then, and to imagine that objections based upon such things can prove God’s power to be impeded in arriving at His end. His end is one, and one only; it is this: when the complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last,—some having at once in this life been cleansed from evil, others having afterwards in the necessary periods been healed by the Fire, others having in their life here been unconscious equally of good and of evil,—to offer to every one of us participation in the blessings which are in Him, ...

The virtuous life as contrasted with that of vice is distinguished thus: those who while living have by virtuous conduct exercised husbandry on themselves are at once revealed in all the qualities of a perfect ear, while those whose bare grain (that is the forces of their natural soul) has become through evil habits degenerate, as it were, and hardened by the weather (as the so-called “hornstruck” seeds , according to the experts in such things, grow up), will, though they live again in the Resurrection, experience very great severity from their Judge

He seems to be implying here that through our willing giving in to temptation and willing commission of sin, we harden our will against God and in as much as we do not repent we thus bring on ourselves a greater severity of judgement, and yet that that judgement in the end is not ineffective to cleanse us.

On freedom of will, if someone is tortured and gives in and thus subsequently denies Christ, has he been forced to deny Christ or has he done so willingly acting out of his own freedom?

Is our will unconditionally free or is there intrinsic in our nature a love of God that causes us to be attracted to Him? St Gregory seems to be teaching the latter. If the latter is true then it seems that our freedom of will consists in moving toward God.

If this is so then what St Gregory seems to be saying here is that eventually the pain caused by our stubborn willfullness in holding onto the earthly material passions in the presense of God will eventually 'convince' us to deny these passions. The amount of pressure brought to bear will be proportional to how tightly we are entwined with them, ie how great our love is for them, how great our commitment is to them, how hardened we are in them. St Gregory here also seems to be making no distinctions between men, but rather clearly states.
when the complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last
Has this view been rejected by the Church?

M.C. Steenberg

31-12-2008, 08:32 PM

Dear friends,

Let us remember: 'universal salvation' and 'universal restoration' are not the same thing. Part of the condemnation of Origen was his views on restoration, since this implied a specific doctrine of a pre-incarnate state of souls that was perfect, from which they rebelled, and to which, in the end, they might all be restored.

This is not the same as a more open question of the salvation of all.

I am not able at present to enter into this discussion more deeply, to comment on the actual matters at hand; but I do think it important to be aware of this distinction.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Terry McGee

31-12-2008, 08:57 PM

I have to ask with regard to the last post, when did Greek Christians ever stop reading scripture in Greek?

I was refering to the rest of the world. I'm sure those who know Greek still study the scriptures in Greek (although probably not aincient Greek) but the rest of us are stuck with questionable translations into our native language.

Anna Stickles

31-12-2008, 11:31 PM

Let us remember: 'universal salvation' and 'universal restoration' are not the same thing. Part of the condemnation of Origen was his views on restoration, since this implied a specific doctrine of a pre-incarnate state of souls that was perfect, from which they rebelled, and to which, in the end, they might all be restored.

Thanks, this is helpful. I don't think most of us accept an idea of pre-incarnate souls as being an Orthodox doctrine, but there is much talk of a restoration of the state before the Fall. It seems, though from what you said on your latest radio broadcast (thanks for these) and from what I remember reading in St Symeon the New Theologian and a couple of others, that to talk of a restoration of the state before the Fall maybe is not right either. Deification seems to be going beyond simply restoration to a new creation, or maybe a fulfillment/perfection of creation is a better way to word it.

M.C. Steenberg

31-12-2008, 11:38 PM

Dear Anna and others,

There is a new article coming out soon from Fr Damascene of St Herman's, in Platina, on the first-created world; and this text raises the issue of 'return' to a state before the 'fall', and how this relates also to going beyond that first-created glory. What we encounter in the fathers is what is really a twofold vision: man must be restored to the condition of communion with God that has been lost through sin, which he did possess before its advent (so there is, in this sense, a 'return'); but the return to this state precisely enables the growth into the fulness of life that such communion makes possible (so there is also a 'beyond': an awareness that in his redeemed life, man goes beyond Eden).

INXC, Dcn Matthew

James Blackstock

02-01-2009, 03:01 PM

All things will be resolved in Christ according to their free will.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I have been impressed by all of the learned responses to my question that initiated this thread, but I find this post by Fr Vereshack to be the simplest and most profound. It seems to me that we all know the answer to the question, in our hearts at least. If it is possible that in the course our human relationships we have encountered someone along the way that has offended us, bored us, exasperated us, angered us, and many years have gone by without reconcilliation, then in effect that person might as well be dead to us. This very same thing happens in the heart of man in his relationship with God, and he chooses where he wants to be for eternity. Either with God in a loving eternal relationship, or something less than that!

Happy New Year to all!

ICXCNIKA,
Seraphim

Terry McGee

03-01-2009, 06:23 AM

Herman Blaydoe

03-01-2009, 02:12 PM

That is the popular train of thought, but is our will truly stronger than God's? Did Christ die to save a few?
So by the trespass of one many were made sinners, also by the sacrifice of one (The same) many were made righteous.

It is not that our will is "stronger". But it is not about who is "stronger". God honors the free-will He gave us. This also plays into Protestant misconceptions. Orthodoxy does not hold to the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity, we weren't "perfected" yet even in Adam. Therefore we did not fall so far nor from so great a height. Therefore Christ's sacrifice does not make us perfect, but "perfectible". And righteousness is something we can also refuse to be. It is not a static state.

Anna Stickles

03-01-2009, 06:23 PM

Herman,

Terry has a legitimate point.

To my mind typical western conceptions of eternal hell have two huge problems. One is that most people understand eternity as endless time with no change. As soon as we postulate that in eternity we are static, or reach some static state, then all of a sudden we have lost our free-will for the very essence of our freedom is the freedom to change. This concept then of endless, unchanging suffering leads to the second problem. It ends up making God responsible for our suffering -there is no way around this.

God brought us into existance, therefore He has a certain responsibility toward us. We are not entirely free agents for we cannot control whether we exist or not. What then of the suffering soul in hell who would rather cease to exist then continue to suffer? How is God honoring their freewill by holding them in existence when they have no ability either to cease to exist or to escape the torment? Again this inability to change is a violation of our freedom. It presupposes that after we die we lose our freedom and I do not see this as being what the Fathers teach. In fact I have seen many things that teach the opposite. Why pray for the dead if their state cannot change? And yet how can their state change soley through our prayers if they do not want that change -this then would be a violation of the principles of freewill.

Also how can someone who is suffering the full weight of their sin not eventually want to change. It is hardly love, rather our desire to change often comes because of our own internal cost/benefit analysis (not as a mental decision more that the heart reaches her limit and says, "Is this really worth it?" and finally gives in. To postulate that we can resist God forever is indeed to postulate that we are as strong as God, that our passionate and sinful will has no limit.

Irenaeus is hard to understand and I don't claim to understand everything he says here, Maybe Fr Dcn Matthew would be willing to comment when he has time, but this seems to address some of the issues I have raised.

Against Heresies, Book 5 chapt. 36

1. For since there are real men, so must there also be a real establishment (plantationem), that they vanish not away among non-existent things, but progress among those which have an actual existence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm). For neither is the substance nor the essence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) of the creation annihilated (for faithful and true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) is He who has established it), but the fashion of the world passes away; 1 Corinthians 7:31 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co007.htm#verse31) that is, those things among which transgression has occurred, since man has grown old in them. And therefore this [present] fashion has been formed temporary, God foreknowing all things; as I have pointed out in the preceding book, and have also shown, as far as was possible, the cause (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm) of the creation of this world of temporal things. But when this [present] fashion [of things] passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, [then] there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain [continually], always holding fresh converse with God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). And since (or, that) these things shall ever continue without end, Isaiah declares, For as the new heavens and the new earth which I do make, continue in my sight, says the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. Isaiah 66:22 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa066.htm#verse22) And as the presbyters (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) say, Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy.

Anna Stickles

03-01-2009, 06:31 PM

There is a new article coming out soon from Fr Damascene of St Herman's, in Platina, on the first-created world

The Orthodox Word that came out in Nov (#258-9) was one long article called "Created in Incorruption" that dealt with all this. Is this what you are talking about or are they coming out with another?

BTW this is well worth the read. It was a great introduction even if it didn't address some of the more complex issues -I think I was left with more questions after reading the article then when I started -but then what can you expect from one article.

Terry McGee

04-01-2009, 05:28 AM

It is not that our will is "stronger". But it is not about who is "stronger". God honors the free-will He gave us. This also plays into Protestant misconceptions. Orthodoxy does not hold to the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity, we weren't "perfected" yet even in Adam. Therefore we did not fall so far nor from so great a height. Therefore Christ's sacrifice does not make us perfect, but "perfectible". And righteousness is something we can also refuse to be. It is not a static state.

I absolutely agree. What is often missed is the difference between being "Justified" by the sacrifice of Christ which we all were, and being "sanctified" by the renewing of the mind. The later requires action on our part. The former was simply the goal achieved by Christ on the cross. Salvation does not purify, it paves the way for purification. Even though all will eventually reach perfection in the love of God, not all will do so before their physical death. The fires are for purification.

God's judgment and punishment are never senseless. They serve a purpose. That purpose is purification.

Herman Blaydoe

04-01-2009, 01:43 PM

Salvation does not purify, it paves the way for purification. Even though all will eventually reach perfection in the love of God, not all will do so before their physical death. The fires are for purification.

God's judgment and punishment are never senseless. They serve a purpose. That purpose is purification.

Something else is being missed here. There are those who know what is "right" and still refuse to do it. We are all created for perfection, but not all will accept it. What you are saying, it seems to me, is that it really does not matter how we live this life, except that it might save us a little "extra" suffering in the next? Nice sentiment, and it is certainly our hope, but I don't believe it is an Orthodox teaching.

I don't think you realize that not everyone will choose to reach perfection. Taking that choice away destroys free will. People will endure punishment to reach perfection. People can also endure punishment to avoid perfection. And THAT is at the bottom of the Orthodox teaching. We will all stand in God's unadulterated presence, saint and sinner alike. Some of us will be glad to stand in that brightness, and some would rather be anywhere else but, and yet there will be nowhere else to go. Even as our Lord tells us in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, there will be a great divide.

Herman

Fr Raphael Vereshack

04-01-2009, 03:13 PM

The Orthodox Word that came out in Nov (#258-9) was one long article called "Created in Incorruption" that dealt with all this. Is this what you are talking about or are they coming out with another?

BTW this is well worth the read. It was a great introduction even if it didn't address some of the more complex issues -I think I was left with more questions after reading the article then when I started -but then what can you expect from one article.

Platina is planning on reprinting Genesis, Creation and Early Man but with added articles on the theme of creation.

Maybe Fr Damascene's "Created in Incorruption" would be part of this. The articles that Platina prints in The Word at times become part of a future book.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Anna Stickles

04-01-2009, 08:47 PM

Hi Terry thanks for continuing with this conversation,

Salvation does not purify, it paves the way for purification. Even though all will eventually reach perfection in the love of God, not all will do so before their physical death. The fires are for purification.

God's judgment and punishment are never senseless. They serve a purpose. That purpose is purification.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that salvation is the result of purification? After all isn't salvation our state of no longer being under God's judgement because we are no longer full of sin and rebelling against God? Then once we are purified we can be perfected in the love of God. But before we are purified how can we be in God's love -since the very thing we need purified from is a sinful will that rejects God and does not love Him?

I absolutely agree. What is often missed is the difference between being "Justified" by the sacrifice of Christ which we all were, and being "sanctified" by the renewing of the mind. The later requires action on our part. The former was simply the goal achieved by Christ on the cross.

In an earlier post you mentioned research into the meaning of aeon and I think part of our difference from the early fathers when thinking of justification and sanctification is that we see things as happening at a certain point in time, whereas the Fathers had a more integrated view. In other words -Salvation and sanctification are eternal realities - but those eternal realities have to become fully actuated in time. So yes we were all justified by Christ's sacrifice -but also our justification is not complete - at this point in time it is still only a potential for us. Justification after all means to be made righteous and we can see that we are not in reality righteous at this time.

I am not sure what you believe but most of us who were brought up Protestant have an unconcious assumption about justification that it is some invisible legal action of God. That particular belief isn't compatible with how the early Church understood justification, rather it was always seen in real terms, as a transformation of our real state.

Here is the definition from Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. The entry is of particular interest in highlighting a basic problem with Protestant theology.

1. prop. (according to the analogy of other verbs ending in ow) to make just, to render righteous or such as he ought to be; but this meaning is extremely rare if not altogether doubtful

2. to show, exhibit, evince one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes to be considered.

3. to declare, pronounce one to be just, righteous or such as he ought to be,

When I looked at this after reading the Fathers and noting the author's comment which I bolded in definition (1) I started to wonder how much he is actually gleaning his definitions from the NT text itself and how much he is simply promoting his own view of what justification is according to what he was taught.

The Orthodox concept found in the Church Fathers stresses a union of the three definitions. They declare that indeed Christ came to make us righteous in fact, not simply declare us righteous. This is the reality that the OT Law was powerless to bring about. (Acts 13:39) The problem with the view that talks merely in terms of God 'declaring' us righteous is that it denies God's power. Since when does the God who spoke the universe into existence declare or pronounce something merely as a word, merely as a puff of air, the way we speak things? When God speaks, He speaks things into existence by the Word.

Therefore, if God declares us just and righteous, if God pronounces that we are such as we ought to be, then He also makes us so by the very Word He speaks. There is no division between definition 1 and definition 3 in God's economy as understood by the early Church. The brokeness, the lack of experiential righteousness in our lives is not a commentary on the powerless of the Word of God, but is a recognition that the Kingdom of God has not fully come yet in our heart and mind and will. We have not yet fully received this Word and it is not yet incarnate in us.

This goes back to what we were talking about with free will. We are not yet justified because we are not yet purified.

Anna Stickles

04-01-2009, 09:01 PM

What you are saying, it seems to me, is that it really does not matter how we live this life, except that it might save us a little "extra" suffering in the next? Nice sentiment, and it is certainly our hope, but I don't believe it is an Orthodox teaching.
Herman

I can't speak for what Terry believes but simply believing in universal salvation does not at all necessitate believing that we will all end up in exactly the same state after the final judgement. Certainly the Fathers teach degrees of deification. Paul in I Cor 3:12-15 talks about suffering loss -and I believe this is a real loss of some type which cannot be regained. Ireneaus in the quote I gave above talks about the city, paradise and heaven. Is it relevant here that Adam and Eve were in paradise but that Ireneaus is actually listing a lower state then paradise in his list? Did he choose his words randomly or with meaning?

But note also what Ireneaus says."man (not 'some men') has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, [then] there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain [continually], always holding fresh converse with God."

People will endure punishment to reach perfection. People can also endure punishment to avoid perfection. And THAT is at the bottom of the Orthodox teaching. We will all stand in God's unadulterated presence, saint and sinner alike. Some of us will be glad to stand in that brightness, and some would rather be anywhere else but, and yet there will be nowhere else to go.

Precisely the problem that has to be addressed is how do we say that mankind is in this state and yet postulate that individual men are not? This is an aspect of Orthodox teaching your view entirely fails to address. Also again look at your last statement "some would rather be anywhere else, there will not be anywhere else to go." This is not freedom at all but force on God's part.

If God is light, is there not room for people to live in whatever intensity of light they can handle?

Herman Blaydoe

04-01-2009, 09:30 PM

I can't speak for what Terry believes but simply believing in universal salvation does not at all necessitate believing that we will all end up in exactly the same state after the final judgement. Certainly the Fathers teach degrees of deification. Paul in I Cor 3:12-15 talks about suffering loss -and I believe this is a real loss of some type which cannot be regained. Ireneaus in the quote I gave above talks about the city, paradise and heaven. Is it relevant here that Adam and Eve were in paradise but that Ireneaus is actually listing a lower state then paradise in his list? Did he choose his words randomly or with meaning?

But note also what Ireneaus says."man (not 'some men') has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, [then] there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain [continually], always holding fresh converse with God."

"Man" is a generic term, not specific. "Man" does not have to mean the same thing as "all men", it depends on the context, at least to this bear of very little brain. I have no doubt St. Ireneaus chose his words carefully, that does not guarantee that we have translated them correctly or placed them in the proper context in our reading.

Precisely the problem that has to be addressed is how do we say that mankind is in this state and yet postulate that individual men are not? This is an aspect of Orthodox teaching your view entirely fails to address. Also again look at your last statement "some would rather be anywhere else, there will not be anywhere else to go." This is not freedom at all but force on God's part.

I don't pretend to know how everything works for fits together. I know what seems to fit within my little bear brain. I think you may be over-thinking this, or I may be under-thinking it. All men can be saved, but not all men will be, seems to be what I hear the Church teaching, I am happy to be corrected if I am harboring a misconception. But can God NOT be somewhere? If He cannot be avoided, is that His fault or our fault in that we might want to avoid Him?

If God is light, is there not room for people to live in whatever intensity of light they can handle?

I don't know, I will find out when I stand in that unadulterated light just like everyone else. But I think there will be those who will reject that light regardless, because they don't want it to be there. What if there are people that cannot tolerate ANY light? Perhaps that is what that "outer darkness" is for that is mentioned in Holy Scripture? I know that it does not sound like the sort of place I want to hang out in. But how is restoring everyone whether or not they want to be "restored" any better a concept? I don't know which is "better", I am just going with what I think the Church teaches. Again, if I am off-base here I look forward to correction.

Herman the not infallible Pooh

Fr Raphael Vereshack

04-01-2009, 10:32 PM

I am uneasy about going so far in getting rid of the idea of Divine justice.

That our state after death is definitely affected by our state in life is continually witnessed to in the Patristic and monastic writings.

But yet this should alert us to the danger in assuming that should all see Christ's Light unveiled then that is what all would desire.

I would say this is not so even by looking at our own present state.

For Christ's Light is not like the physical light that one simply adjusts one's eyes to and then lives amidst its warmth.

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him whom we have to do. (Heb. 4: 12-13)
Our God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29).

I think that really we are asking two questions here: one is about those who try however poorly to approach Christ's Light including even if it only is according to the natural law of man.

About such there is so much witness from within the Church that we should already have confidence that although we cannot absolutely know anyone's future we must still turn to God's mercy that those who struggle may be purified in order to see His Light.

However concerning those who hate that Light and turn away from it, grinding it underfoot, whether this concerns the Light of Christ or that light seen in all men how can we be so confident when the Church gives continual warnings and imprecations about this?

Acknowledging then our own fear, disdain and hatred of this Light what is most crucial is that we struggle to accept this Light wherever it may lead us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Terry McGee

05-01-2009, 01:24 AM

Anna Stickles

05-01-2009, 04:11 AM

I Corinthians chapter 6 shows Paul talking to the Corinthian body about judging the world and even angels.
This section of text seems to show a higher purpose that can be achieved by those who are successful in becoming purified in God's love here and now in this life. Is there any teaching on this in Orthodoxy?

Lots, Read the lives of the Orthodox saints. The book on Fr Arseny (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5655)is a great place to start.

Dear Herman and Fr Raphael,

I will admit up front that I am not sure whether everyone will be saved or not. How can I know what is in other people? As Aslan said, "I only tell people their own story." And I guess this is part of my problem. I tend to react rather badly to those who seem so certain that there will definitately be some who will go to hell, because in my experience this belief has so often been abused by people saying -well we are going to heaven but so and so out there is not.

Very often the certainty that some men will go to hell turns into the judgement that those men will go to hell. And it seems to me that as soon as we have stepped across this boundary we have stepped outside the gospel.

Dear Father,

I am uneasy about going so far in getting rid of the idea of Divine justice.

Even on a strictly philosophical level, This is exactly why I lean toward universal salvation, although as I said above, how can we know anything for certain. I am uneasy about the idea of Divine Justice that is implied in a view of unending suffering.

"Divine justice is against human law. Human law is inflexibly equal to all, for it never deviates, but attributes justice to everyone, by putting more emphasis on its regulations than on each individual person. However, divine justice at times deviates and is sympathetically granted to all; it doesn't mistreat people who deserve punishment, while it plentifully rewards the praiseworthy ones.

So divine justice and charity is an expression of God's sympathy towards humanity, whereas human justice and fair judgement tend to be an expression of ill-will. Human justice exists to bar the evil doings of malicious people. Just as a dry weed cannot grow where there is a fire burning, divine justice cannot co-exist with impartial judgement." Elder Paisios

Lord have mercy on me and teach me better if this is against the mind of the Church.

Acknowledging then our own fear, disdain and hatred of this Light what is most crucial is that we struggle to accept this Light wherever it may lead us.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-01-2009, 04:02 PM

Anna Stickles wrote:

I tend to react rather badly to those who seem so certain that there will definitately be some who will go to hell, because in my experience this belief has so often been abused by people saying -well we are going to heaven but so and so out there is not.

Very often the certainty that some men will go to hell turns into the judgement that those men will go to hell. And it seems to me that as soon as we have stepped across this boundary we have stepped outside the gospel.

But certainly- and this is the point- the opposite presumption is most prominent nowadays. In other words that 'all will go to heaven' and 'definitely so' regardless of what they do.

Lack of consequence deprives action of all of its moral meaning of choice. This inevitably ends us in a self contradictory 'heaven' of selfishness. In other words by denying the hell we create we end up placing ourselves further into it.

That is why for such statements as those of Elder Paisios:

"So divine justice and charity is an expression of God's sympathy towards humanity, whereas human justice and fair judgement tend to be an expression of ill-will. Human justice exists to bar the evil doings of malicious people. Just as a dry weed cannot grow where there is a fire burning, divine justice cannot co-exist with impartial judgement."

the intent must be focussed in their intended way. ie our lack of sympathy towards humanity; our lack of fair judgement and will by which we directly place ourselves into a self imposed hell.

What should be understood is that whether this hell is eternal or not at a later state is entirely dependent on what we desire. The eternity or not of hell does not overcome this basic spiritual fact. Whether or how God would overcome resistance to Him and the hell consequent on this can only be contingent on our desire for the good.

But to bring the discussion back full circle- if we expect good to result from good choices then why are we expecting good to also result from bad choices?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Anna Stickles

05-01-2009, 05:34 PM

But certainly- and this is the point- the opposite presumption is most prominent nowadays. In other words that 'all will go to heaven' and 'definitely so' regardless of what they do.

The opposite presumption is most prominant outside conservative Christian circules. But I don't think the solution to this issue is the typical conservative response that 'You are wrong because of course people are going to hell' is adequate when we haven't really attempted to deal with the questions. The typical conservative response is to hide in what we have been taught.

"One of the moral diseases we comminicate to one another in society comes from huddling together in the pale light of an insufficient answer to a question we are afraid to ask." No Man is an Island, Thomas Merton

You said

Lack of consequence deprives action of all of its moral meaning of choice....What should be understood is that whether this hell is eternal or not at a later state is entirely dependent on what we desire. The eternity or not of hell does not overcome this basic spiritual fact. Whether or how God would overcome resistance to Him and the hell consequent on this can only be contingent on our desire for the good.

But to bring the discussion back full circle- if we expect good to result from good choices then why are we expecting good to also result from bad choices?

I don't think anything I have said here denies that there are consequences to our choices. Re the quotes from Gregory of Nyssa and my points on I Cor 3. I am not saying what I have said is right, it's just speculation after all - it's simply my attempts to avoid a view that either denies our responsiblity or makes God out to be a tyrant.

The issues I cannot seem to get past is that if our later state is entirely dependent on what we desire, then the question remains, did God originally make us with a desire for Him as part of that original Image, and if so can this desire be so destroyed forever? Or maybe the better question is can the individual person's will deny forever their own nature? And also what about God's responsiblity toward us for our existence and how He made us.

But here I am repeating the questions from previous posts and so when the discussion starts to repeat, the points have probably been covered and in the end remain unanswerable.

Herman Blaydoe

05-01-2009, 06:19 PM

did God originally make us with a desire for Him as part of that original Image, and if so can this desire be so destroyed as to be lost forever?

I think it worthwhile to mention that Genesis uses two words, "image" AND "likeness" in describing how we were created. I think the Fathers are in agreement that the image cannot be destroyed, but we can certainly choose how much in the "likeness" we want to be. I don't know that it can be "lost" but I suspect it can be rejected for eternity (which is not the same thing as "forever" if my readings are aright). I'm not sure how allowing us to accept or reject Him makes Him a tyrant. Now if the question is can we change our minds after death, I am willing to admit that I don't know, but the opinions of many Orthodox writers seems to be that option is, at best, very limited although some seem to believe that it is possible. But possibility does not necessarily imply inevitability. It may well be that the possibility is ALWAYS there, but for some, it will ALWAYS be rejected, because of how that person lived their life and the choices they have made, forms the basis for the choices they make in the future, it is called habit. Some people are able to rise above bad habits by cultivating good habits, I think this is the foundation of asceticism. I have seen a general reluctance within Orthodoxy to specify that any particular person is "damned" forever, there are Orthodox monastics who even pray for the eventual salvation of the evil one. Responsible Orthodox advice does not dwell on whether or not others are in or headed for eternal damnation, but generally seem full of concern that you and I do our best to avoid it. And I have never seen or heard or read anything to indicate that Orthodox Christians are to rejoice in anybody's damnation.

While the Orthodox jury may be out on whether or not someone can be "prayed" into salvation after their death, I have to believe that the general consensus is that this is not something we personally should be relying on!

And also what about God's responsiblity toward us for our existence and how He made us.

That is a big question for this bear of little brain, I wouldn't presume to assign "responsibility" to the Omnipotent. He can do whatever He wills and He seems not a bit hesitant to say so. I guess, at least for me, it comes down to trust in so great a Love as expressed in John 3:16, a love that saves, but does not dominate, the ultimate humility in that He who is all powerful gives us who are not the final say in our ultimate destination (destiny seems to loaded a word to use here).

Herman the Pooh

Anna Stickles

05-01-2009, 07:19 PM

Dear Fr Raphael,

But to bring the discussion back full circle- if we expect good to result from good choices then why are we expecting good to also result from bad choices?

I was thinking about this and realized I have a problem that probably stems from how I understand the consequences of the Fall- Doctrinal differences really can have far reaching effects and I think I haven't really accepted that we freely make bad choices.

Rather, where I have come from is the assumption that we are born with a predisposition to sin such that we can fight against it, but are nevertheless currently enslaved to it and therefore not wholly free in our choices, therefore not wholly responsible for our condition. Again this goes back to God's justice -- How can God leave us to suffer the consequences of what we are not wholly responsible for?

I think I am fine in accepting blindly that God's justice certainly is not unfair, and as has been talked about elsewhere the solution for escaping our condition is precisely in taking responsiblity for it. If we don't take up responsiblity for ourselves how can we cooperate with God in changing us? We have to grow up and can't remain a child forever. We have to admit our resonsiblity fully before we can fully repent. In as much as we are blaming God or our circumstances or our parents or Adam, we can't repent of our condition as our condition and this traps us. Why I keep going round the same set of questions again and again I don't know. Habitual ways of thinking I guess.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-01-2009, 10:38 PM

Anna Stickles wrote:

we are born with a predisposition to sin such that we can fight against it, but are nevertheless currently enslaved to it and therefore not wholly free in our choices, therefore not wholly responsible for our condition. Again this goes back to God's justice -- How can God leave us to suffer the consequences of what we are not wholly responsible for?

There is enough about this question addressed in the Fathers and monastic writings that we can outline an answer to it.

For example the Fathers speak of original sin or the sin of Adam which we all share in. But a crucial point is that we accord with this sin by our free will. In other words even though there is a disposition towards this from birth we are the ones who freely are attracted towards this.

How are we to understand this mystery? Perhaps one thing to point out is contained in many lives of the saints when it is indicated how from earliest infancy the saint went against the grain of sin. Does this mean the saint was sinless? No. But it does indicate how this question of slavery to sin is connected to what we ourselves want.

Another tack the Fathers also take about sin and responsibility comes close to the very question we are discussing. The Fathers always assumed a present and future punishment for sin. This understanding was shared in by the whole of Christian society. But how they would ask could we maintain that God is just if we are punished for that which we have no control over?

My point therefore is that sin and its consequences according to the Fathers is always connected to free will. They see and acknowledge how corrupted and thus enslaved the will is by sin. But still they insist on looking at this question in a positive way so that through our recognizing that this slavery is due to our desire we might be freed from sin. How else could a man in prison be freed if we claim the door was permanently closed?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Vasiliki D.

05-01-2009, 11:16 PM

but we can certainly choose how much in the "likeness" we want to be. I don't know that it can be "lost" but I suspect it can be rejected for eternity (which is not the same thing as "forever" if my readings are aright). I'm not sure how allowing us to accept or reject Him makes Him a tyrant.

I often wonder if this is the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" that can "never be forgiven"?

I think many of us look at the words "never be forgiven" as a negative on God's behalf. Whereas rather than God not wanting to forgive us - He is not being allowed/restricted from forgiving us .. the difference is between the "not wanting" and "not being allowed" - ie. Us taking away God's natural right/response to forgive us.

The proof I offer for this thread is not patristic based but rather it is from the icon of the Bridegroom.

In this icon we see in Christ's face the desire to forgive us, to help us - an almost helpless and really touchingly sad expression - BUT his hands are tied by a rope ... I see the rope as representing our choices .. our sins. When we choose a certain way it prevents God from being able to help us because it is contrary to His nature to be close to "evil" [evil being anything betraying God's image and likeness] because He [is] pure love.

Perhaps I didnt express this respone right - I hope people can forgive and understand what I am trying to say ... it is in complement of what Herman is saying and especially with his final statement:

it comes down to trust in so great a Love as expressed in John 3:16, a love that saves, but does not dominate, the ultimate humility in that He who is all powerful gives us who are not the final say in our ultimate destination

If you are not familiary with the icon of the Bridegroom, please visit this link:
http://commons.orthodoxwiki.org/images/8/89/Bridegroom.jpg

Terry McGee

06-01-2009, 03:46 AM

Perhaps I didnt express this respone right - I hope people can forgive and understand what I am trying to say ... it is in complement of what Herman is saying and especially with his final statement:

it comes down to trust in so great a Love as expressed in John 3:16, a love that saves, but does not dominate, the ultimate humility in that He who is all powerful gives us who are not the final say in our ultimate destination

The really beautiful part of this statement is in John 3:17
"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." KJV

Paul Cowan

06-01-2009, 06:24 AM

The really beautiful part of this statement is in John 3:17
"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." KJV[/LEFT]

The key word here is "might". Now we are back to square one.

I may just have my head in the sand if so, it is my sand but; I think there is a heaven and a hell. I think some people will be in one or the other for eternity. But as the prophet said, "Choose life".

Vasiliki D.

06-01-2009, 06:40 AM

The key word here is "might". Now we are back to square one.

I may just have my head in the sand if so, it is my sand but; I think there is a heaven and a hell. I think some people will be in one or the other for eternity. But as the prophet said, "Choose life".

Hey I am part of the old school of thought which is Heaven and Hell ... it is only recently that Theologians have re-introduced the concept of 'all will be saved'. I think that we regurgitate themes already closed out by previous Saints and Theologians in our church .. but I would never be able to substantiate this comment other than what I have grown to know in my 30 years of being Orthodox and knowing what my Church teaches mean and that is there is heaven and there is hell.

Which does not place us back in square one by your comment because if we DO CHOOSE to "blaspheme the Spirit" (see the Bridegroom icon again) then WE CHOOSE (consciously or unconsciously) "hell" ... there was a saint Justin Popovich comment I heard today that is so relevant to this ...

Paul Cowan

06-01-2009, 06:57 AM

Vasiliki D.

06-01-2009, 07:05 AM

In the end, we just won't know until we get there. We can hypothosize all we want. We have conflicting stories from the saints. They were probably all right on the money. We are not yet meant to know every mystery. So I will have the faith of a little child and play in my sand box.

No. This is not true. There is no hypothesising on this topic; we simply have not got the skills to articulate the proof for it to the level required on this thread. God has revealed many things to us in the Holy Scripture - Old and New Testament ... the only mystery that is not revealed to us is the "schema" of heaven and hell - that they exists as two seperate entities separated by a chasm we DO know .. what this is we dont.

The Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus is from the mouth of Christ himself; he makes NO mistakes with what he says. Lazarus is in a form of hell and the poor man is in a form of heaven - we have no descriptions as to what these are etc etc but they are definately two separate modes of existance and notice which Old Testament personality is in this parable ... the fact that Jesus mentions him goes to show that Lazarus and the Rich man were not just a parable but based on a real story. Why introduce a real person into a myth?

Paul Cowan

06-01-2009, 07:20 AM

Why introduce a real person into a myth?

It is SO hard to talk on the internet. I did not say anything was a myth. I was not talking about hypothocizing about a heaven or a hell. Read back over the lenght of this thread and you can read a banter of ideas going back and forth on whether universal restoration is accurate or not so accurate. SInce there is no evidence one way or another, it is hypothocizing.

We can ask God when we get there. He will probably tell me, personally, I should have listened to that lady Vasiliki back in early 2009 on that very good website very few people financially supported. Or, he might say Terry was more right or wrong or Fr. Rapheal was more right or wrong or Anna was. All I am saying is we are trying to use our brains to figure out a mystery we might be better off relying on faith for.

I am ordered to Love God with all my heart, mind soul and strength and to Love my neighbor as myself. If I do that, I have a better chance of restoring my soul to God than if I tried to figure out who will or will not join me in heaven or hell.

Vasiliki D.

06-01-2009, 08:06 AM

It is SO hard to talk on the internet. I did not say anything was a myth. I was not talking about hypothocizing about a heaven or a hell. Read back over the lenght of this thread and you can read a banter of ideas going back and forth on whether universal restoration is accurate or not so accurate. SInce there is no evidence one way or another, it is hypothocizing.

The truth be told I am not clear exactly what the point of this thread is since I have not read through ALL of the posts ... it seems to have a few sub-themes ...

What I cant understand is why everyone is trying to prove it or disprove it when the evidence is clearly in the Bible. It takes special holy people to translate the essence of this though - which I know I am not worthy of. I have heard such speakers in my lifetime but the problem I have is that I have NO blessing to translate there works and therefore contribute some really worthwhile information in support of this thread and (some) of the others ...

I can share that the answer for "restoration" lies in a specific verse of Isaiah, a particular excerpt of Saint Iranaeus and Saint Justin Popovich - these three excerpts when combined together and analysed under the right Orthodox pretence reveals the answer - but I have no blessing to translate this :( What do I do - it would be impossible for me to locate the excerpts of Iranaeus and Popovich and cut and paste ...

Vasiliki D.

07-01-2009, 07:02 AM

The Lord says in Mat. v. 5. "Blessed are the Meek for the shall inherit the earth by inheritance"

This is what Saint Iranaeus says, " ... as if in the [future] kingdom, the earth, from whence exists the substance of oru flesh, is to be possessed by inheritance." ... "As, therefore, the bride cannot [be said] to wed, but to be wedded, when the bridegroom comes and takes her, so also the flesh cannot by itself possess the kingdom of God by inheritance; but it can be taken for an inheritance into the kingdom of God."

I am finding that a lot of his work answers inadvertantly many of the questions on these forums ...

M.C. Steenberg

08-01-2009, 02:04 AM

Dear Vasiliki, Herman, Anna, Paul, Fr Raphael, and many others,

I'm not certain what the quotation of St Irenaeus' comments on inheritance say directly to our theme here. So far as I can remember, they have nothing to do with the question of 'universal salvation', per se. They are made as part of Irenaeus' response to the Valentinians' dualistic mis-use of St Paul's comment, that 'flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God'. While they take the text to 'prove' that a bodily resurrection is not possible, and that only the spirit of a man exists eternally in the divine realm, St Irenaeus shows a far different meaning to Paul's words. Flesh and blood have no power of their own to obtain eternity; flesh and blood are corruptible things. However, they can be inherited into eternity and the Kingdom, for this is an act not of their own power, but of another's power, God's power, that acts upon them. St Paul confirms that the flesh has no strength of its own to attain and maintain eternity, but certainly does not - as St Irenaeus shows - deny that it can attain to the Kingdom at all.

Taken more broadly, St Irenaeus (in passages such as, for example, that which Anna posted above) does speak to the question of the scope of salvation offered in Christ, and does speak of God's continual provision of corrective opportunities for new growth. But he also has a strong perception of ultimate consequences -- one of the very reasons he speaks with such urgency against the Valentinians and other such groups, whose doctrines he describes as 'homicidal' and even 'suicidal'.

As to life and death, the kingdom of this earth and the kingdom to come, the Church has been given abundant revelation. The fathers speak in extraordinary detail of these realms, and of the state of the soul as it passes between them, awaiting in foretaste the fulness of heaven and hell as shall be established at the universal resurrection. In our modern world, we have forgotten a great deal of this, and neglect (or malign) a great deal of the testimony of the fathers on the issue; and so we are left with a much weakened vision, which prompts all sorts of questions raised by the 'vagueness' of the resulting situation.

This seems a particularly modern phenomenon, bound up in the forgetfulness and dismissiveness of our age to much of the patristic teaching on death and the future life. The very question of 'universal salvation' hardly ever occurs, as such, in the patristic testimony -- its only real 'sources' there are Origen (whose views on the matter were condemned not for the question of universality, but for their existence as part of a scheme of pre-existing and pre-falling souls), and St Gregory of Nyssa, whose questions on the matter stand out precisely because they are so uncommon in the wider patristic testimony.

INXC, Dcn Matthew