Apokatastasis of nature [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Nina

09-11-2007, 08:49 PM

Let me rephrase my question Fr Raphael.
I agree with you that free will, will not disappear. My question is. How is human nature completely saved and not the soul. Example. When Christ died on the cross he saved man from death in full, but not from sin in full. How can one be saved from death and not sin. when the consequence for sin is death. Either your saved from both or neither. Since I agree that we have a free will. Is there a possiblity that our nature might not be saved as well?

Demetrios, I am not sure if you by apokatastasis mean the restoration of all things. But if so, we in Orthodoxy do not believe in "restoration of all things" and "universal salvation".

In regard to the rest:

God did give us by His Crucifixion the possibility to be saved from eternal Hades, but we still have to undergo the consequences of sin: decay and death.

God can not save us from sin, since God respects our free will. And we have the ability to reject sin. While we have this ability, we can not have saved ourselves from eternal Hades, and we can not reject death like we reject sin.

Demetrios

09-11-2007, 10:31 PM

Demetrios, I am not sure if you by apokatastasis mean the restoration of all things. But if so, we in Orthodoxy do not believe in "restoration of all things" and "universal salvation".

In regard to the rest:

God did give us by His Crucifixion the possibility to be saved from eternal Hades, but we still have to undergo the consequences of sin: decay and death.

God can not save us from sin, since God respects our free will. And we have the ability to reject sin. While we have this ability, we can not have saved ourselves from eternal Hades, and we can not reject death like we reject sin.

Thanks for responding Nina. Let me try to clarify a little further. It is said that Christ defeated death. The church says that it's universal. If it wasn't than there would be no hell because you would have to be alive to get there. Do you follow me now? That is what I mean when I say, an apokatastasis of nature.

Kosta

09-11-2007, 10:36 PM

When we die we go to hades not hell. Depending on the conduct of your life here on earth your either far from the divine light or close to it. We only recieve a foretaste of what is to come. Prayers 'may' help to alleviate your condition in the Second Coming and final Judgment.

The evil are thrown into the gehenna fire. But its our sin that seperates us from God. The more we sin the further we seperate ourselves from the Light of Life.

Demetrios

10-11-2007, 01:52 AM

Father David Moser

10-11-2007, 02:08 AM

What if I believed that gehenna, hades, and hell are the same place.

Then you wouldn't be in synch with Orthodox teaching (at least as I understand it).

Fr David Moser

Demetrios

10-11-2007, 02:45 AM

Then you wouldn't be in synch with Orthodox teaching (at least as I understand it).

Fr David Moser

I'm just trying to understand how human nature is universally saved. I would like to post this homily witch tells us that hell and hades are both done away with.

Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom:

Let no one grieve at his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it.

He destroyed Hades when He descended into it. He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh. Isaiah foretold this when he said, "You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with. It was in an uproar because it is mocked. It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed. It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated. It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive. Hell took a body, and discovered God. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.

O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, O death, are annihilated! Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down! Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice! Christ is Risen, and life is liberated! Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead; for Christ having risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Andreas Moran

10-11-2007, 09:20 AM

I'm just trying to understand how human nature is universally saved.

I thought we were not allowed to believe this. (Isn't that why Origen isn't a saint?) I'd like it to be true - that would be a comfort to me! But then I'd doubtless be even more careless and negligent than I am already.

Kosta

10-11-2007, 10:57 AM

What if I believed that gehenna, hades, and hell are the same place.

In the intermediate state: Heaven/paradise/place of comfort/ Tartarus / place of torment is ALL HADES. This is all ancient greek thought. Hades was divided into three parts in pre-christian greek thought:
1. The Elysium fields- Equvalent to heaven/paradise, where the heroic went another words the place where the Virgin Mary and many Saints go immediately
2. Asphodel Meadows- the place where the "average joes" went. Equivalent to where we go after death and recieve a foretaste of what is prepared for us after the Second Coming.
3. Tartarus- Place where the truly wicked go. Mentioned in (2 Pet 2.4) as the prison for the fallen angels. Probably the place where Christ went to free the OT saints as portrayed in the icon of the Descent into Hell (see 1 Pet 3.18-20 and compare with 2 Pet 2.4-5). And possibly where the truly wicked are dragged off to and recieve the foretaste of what awaits them.

The above is speculation, but this is what i do know about the Orthodox teaching:

When our Lord was crucified he told the repentant thief, "TODAY, you will be with me in paradise". Christ went to Hades for 3 days. Another words Where Christ is there is paradise. The repentant thief was close to Christ in his bosom. As the parable of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man says, In the "bosom of Abraham" (Lk 16.19)

There are degrees of participation with the communion of God according to our level of repentance and theosis. At the same time we can say there are degrees of seperation from The Divine Light according to the immensity of our unrepentant sins. The more egregious our sins the further we place ourselves from the divine and uncreated Light, to the point of the "blackness of darkness" (2 Pet 2.17, Matt 8.12).

We are not all restored back to an equal level of theosis, it would be arrogant for an average person to recieve the same rewards as a Mother Theresa. Scripture says, ".......Assuredly it would be MORE TOLERABLE for Sodom and Gomorah in the day of Judgement than for that city." (Mark 6.11)

And Andreas is right universal salvation was condemned in three different anathemas against Origen at the 5th ecumenical council.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

10-11-2007, 03:45 PM

Demetrios wrote:

I'm just trying to understand how human nature is universally saved. I would like to post this homily witch tells us that hell and hades are both done away with. then follows St John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily

Maybe we're not understanding what you mean by universal salvation. Death has indeed been trampled down through Christ's death & resurrection. And the effects of this victory are universal both in terms of time and place.

Thus death & sin no longer reign supreme as before Christ. But we have yet to complete the effects of this victory.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Demetrios

10-11-2007, 03:47 PM

In the intermediate state: Heaven/paradise/place of comfort/ Tartarus / place of torment is ALL HADES. This is all ancient greek thought. Hades was divided into three parts in pre-christian greek thought:
1. The Elysium fields- Equvalent to heaven/paradise, where the heroic went another words the place where the Virgin Mary and many Saints go immediately
2. Asphodel Meadows- the place where the "average joes" went. Equivalent to where we go after death and recieve a foretaste of what is prepared for us after the Second Coming.
3. Tartarus- Place where the truly wicked go. Mentioned in (2 Pet 2.4) as the prison for the fallen angels. Probably the place where Christ went to free the OT saints as portrayed in the icon of the Descent into Hell (see 1 Pet 3.18-20 and compare with 2 Pet 2.4-5). And possibly where the truly wicked are dragged off to and recieve the foretaste of what awaits them.

The above is speculation, but this is what i do know about the Orthodox teaching:

When our Lord was crucified he told the repentant thief, "TODAY, you will be with me in paradise". Christ went to Hades for 3 days. Another words Where Christ is there is paradise. The repentant thief was close to Christ in his bosom. As the parable of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man says, In the "bosom of Abraham" (Lk 16.19)

There are degrees of participation with the communion of God according to our level of repentance and theosis. At the same time we can say there are degrees of seperation from The Divine Light according to the immensity of our unrepentant sins. The more egregious our sins the further we place ourselves from the divine and uncreated Light, to the point of the "blackness of darkness" (2 Pet 2.17, Matt 8.12).

We are not all restored back to an equal level of theosis, it would be arrogant for an average person to recieve the same rewards as a Mother Theresa. Scripture says, ".......Assuredly it would be MORE TOLERABLE for Sodom and Gomorah in the day of Judgement than for that city." (Mark 6.11)

And Andreas is right universal salvation was condemned in three different anathemas against Origen at the 5th ecumenical council.

I don't believe your quite understanding me. I not suggesting that we loose our free will. Your defending free will and so am I. Origen was condemned for apokatastasis of souls. I am talking about apokatastasis nature. When Christ defeted death. The church states that he did that for all. I would like to know how the church came to this conclusion. Just trying to understand. I bring up a blank when I think about it. In other words the church states that man is now immortal because of what Christ did on the cross. I don't see how that is possible universally. In other words how can we say we are immortal. By doing so we create a hell in the sense. This is more likey to have come from st.Augustine's plotonic theology.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

10-11-2007, 04:39 PM

Immortality is not just a biological or physical state. It is the manifestation first of the fact that we are created in the image & likeness of God; ie once having been created from nothingness by God we will exist eternally.

Then it is the manifestation of free choice; ie whether we will accept or reject the fruits of Christ's triumph over sin & death through His crucifixion and resurrection. According to this use of free choice immortality will be either communion with Christ or separation from Him.

One is a life-giving immortality while the other is the free rejection of this even while life is giving us our being. I suppose this opposition between what God gives & what we reject is what makes it hell. It might have been easier from the perspective of the person rejecting God's gift to have the results of this be a complete death and disappearance. But then this is also the same question of life being connected with responsibility which we see now. Once having been given life there is no backing out of responsibility for it on our part- except by being irresponsible.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Demetrios

10-11-2007, 04:57 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

10-11-2007, 11:07 PM

Thank you Fr. Raphael

I understand your point very well. This is what most people believe. But lets just say for a moment that human nature and salvation of our souls are linked together. Instead of saying that nature is saved univerally and our souls are not. When we read the bible and the fathers in this context we can say that eternal life is real eternal life. How would that change our theology?

I don't think I'm folllowing what you mean when you say, "nature is saved universally." Could you explain this more fully?

Thanks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Demetrios

11-11-2007, 01:37 AM

I don't think I'm folllowing what you mean when you say, "nature is saved universally." Could you explain this more fully?

Thanks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Forgive me Fr Raphael if I can't get my point across. I have a limited vocabulary and I am a layman.

Basicly we know that Christ defeated death because he resurrected. The Church believes that all are incuded in this resurrection. I don't understand why. Now lets say that it's just Christ and not us. For us to defeat death we would have to be in communion with him. Or die eternally into non-existance. Where did the idea of apokatastasis of nature come from. Meaning how are we incorperated into Christs resurrection?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

11-11-2007, 04:17 PM

Forgive me Fr Raphael if I can't get my point across. I have a limited vocabulary and I am a layman.

Basicly we know that Christ defeated death because he resurrected. The Church believes that all are incuded in this resurrection. I don't understand why. Now lets say that it's just Christ and not us. For us to defeat death we would have to be in communion with him. Or die eternally into non-existance. Where did the idea of apokatastasis of nature come from. Meaning how are we incorperated into Christs resurrection?

We are included in Christ's resurrection through His adoption of human nature. Through His Incarnation He shares our nature & we are enabled to be in communion with Him and thus share in His triumph over death through His Crucifixion and Resurrection.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Demetrios

12-11-2007, 03:46 PM

We are included in Christ's resurrection through His adoption of human nature. Through His Incarnation He shares our nature & we are enabled to be in communion with Him and thus share in His triumph over death through His Crucifixion and Resurrection.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

This is exactly what I'm trying to understand. You state that now that he shares our nature. I agree completely. Don't we have to be in communion with him to share in his nature witch is now immortal? You see? Instead of treating his taking on human nature as a universal event. Why not treat it as an event that requires communion? There are many passages in the bible that can indicate this. I'll give an example.

53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

What really bothers me is this passage.

The consequence for sin is death.

The Church is saying, that we are saved from the consequence. If we are saved from the consequence. we are saved universally. So to speak. But leaves us with the problem of sin. They made sin eternal.

They created a hell in a sense because sin became immortal. Out of the control of god. An eternal rebellion. I see a problem with that. We must ask our selves this. If evil will not exist. Sin may not as well. They are both the same thing. When God put Adam out of the garden he said to him. That you will die physically. He didn't say you will die and go to hell for eternal torment. He just said you will die.

Do you see what I am saying. According to the Church. Christ left some men in a worse condition than before he came. Before he came there was just death. Now it has bin elevated to eternal torment. I have a problem believing that a savior would ever do that.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-11-2007, 04:12 PM

Demetrios wrote:

What really bothers me is this passage.

The consequence for sin is death
.

The Church is saying, that we are saved from the consequence. If we are saved from the consequence. we are saved universally. So to speak. But leaves us with the problem of sin. They made sin eternal.

They created a hell in a sense because sin became immortal. Out of the control of god. An eternal rebellion. I see a problem with that. We must ask our selves this. If evil will not exist. Sin may not as well. They are both the same thing. When God put Adam out of the garden he said to him. That you will die physically. He didn't say you will die and go to hell for eternal torment. He just said you will die.

Of course sin has consequences- even universal ones. But these consequences are not binding on nature due to Christ's adoption of human nature and His crucifixion and resurrection. Thus man in freedom must turn to Christ and through this launch out into that life which in turn has universal consequence.

This universal consequence does not occur at one moment in time however precisely because it is universal in consequence. Just as sin occured at the Fall at one moment in time still it worked its way through creation affecting all things. Thus Christ's redemption purposefully reverses this falleness working its affects though creation like yeast working in dough in a free manner.

So nature finds itself at a given point in time at any given moment and the consequences of its actions are universal. But the consequences of these actions are actually set on a line in which nature is not yet complete and faces towards fulfillment. Christ as Creator of this order of nature and especially through His adoption of it through His Incarnation does not reject this order but rather fulfills it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Demetrios

12-11-2007, 07:25 PM

Demetrios wrote:

Of course sin has consequences- even universal ones. But these consequences are not binding on nature due to Christ's adoption of human nature and His crucifixion and resurrection. Thus man in freedom must turn to Christ and through this launch out into that life which in turn has universal consequence.

This universal consequence does not occur at one moment in time however precisely because it is universal in consequence. Just as sin occured at the Fall at one moment in time still it worked its way through creation affecting all things. Thus Christ's redemption purposefully reverses this falleness working its affects though creation like yeast working in dough in a free manner.

So nature finds itself at a given point in time at any given moment and the consequences of its actions are universal. But the consequences of these actions are actually set on a line in which nature is not yet complete and faces towards fulfillment. Christ as Creator of this order of nature and especially through His adoption of it through His Incarnation does not reject this order but rather fulfills it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I agree with you with the exception that sin and the effects from it last after death. There is no guarantee that the yeast can make it through the whole dough before the dough spoils. I believe what your implying is an apokatastasis of souls. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yuri Zharikov

12-11-2007, 09:36 PM

This is exactly what I'm trying to understand. You state that now that he shares our nature. I agree completely. Don't we have to be in communion with him to share in his nature witch is now immortal? You see? Instead of treating his taking on human nature as a universal event. Why not treat it as an event that requires communion? There are many passages in the bible that can indicate this. I'll give an example.

What really bothers me is this passage.
.

The Church is saying, that we are saved from the consequence. If we are saved from the consequence. we are saved universally. So to speak. But leaves us with the problem of sin. They made sin eternal.

They created a hell in a sense because sin became immortal. Out of the control of god. An eternal rebellion. I see a problem with that. We must ask our selves this. If evil will not exist. Sin may not as well. They are both the same thing. When God put Adam out of the garden he said to him. That you will die physically. He didn't say you will die and go to hell for eternal torment. He just said you will die.

Do you see what I am saying. According to the Church. Christ left some men in a worse condition than before he came. Before he came there was just death. Now it has bin elevated to eternal torment. I have a problem believing that a savior would ever do that.

Demetrios,

Forgive me, but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in your posts. You do not seem to appreciate that our state after death and in resurrection is not a consequence of God's decision, for He wants every man to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth (i.e. Christ), but of our accepting or rejecting this salvation - free will.

Before Christ decended into Hades, St. John the Baptist was there before Him and he preached the same message of repentance as he did on earth. At Christ's decent to Hades everybody there, i.e. every OT human from Adam to the last person who died before Christ's death on the Cross, would have a free choice of accepting Him (icon of resurrection) or not. Faith is from hearing and all of them would have heard St. John's sermon of the advent of the Lord.

Same thing is with us. Once we have believed in the Lord and have been baptised in His death, we begin to struggle to death with our corrupted nature (we are conceived and born already in iniquities). We struggle because the Lord said that we must not only believe in Him but also suffer for Him and this suffering comes from our struggle with our flesh, passions, world and demons - all of which are destortions of the originally good creation and all of which will burn on the Judgement Day. In this struggle we with much pain develop a habit of chosing good over evil. No matter how many times we fall - as long as we repent, get up agaion and continue to conciously try to do good, we are with Christ. Thus we become perfected and our free will, which we will ALWAYS have, becomes perfected in virtue, which will come to its full fruition in the general resurrection. Then the Lord will come and in Him, the consuming fire, those established in virtue will shine and those steeped in eveil habits and passions will burn body and soul. This will be hell.

Your use of the word "universal" is very confusing and I am not sure how it fits the picture (perhaps it does not).

In the Lord,
Yura

Demetrios

13-11-2007, 03:11 PM

Demetrios wrote:

Of course sin has consequences- even universal ones. But these consequences are not binding on nature due to Christ's adoption of human nature and His crucifixion and resurrection. Thus man in freedom must turn to Christ and through this launch out into that life which in turn has universal consequence.

This universal consequence does not occur at one moment in time however precisely because it is universal in consequence. Just as sin occured at the Fall at one moment in time still it worked its way through creation affecting all things. Thus Christ's redemption purposefully reverses this falleness working its affects though creation like yeast working in dough in a free manner.

So nature finds itself at a given point in time at any given moment and the consequences of its actions are universal. But the consequences of these actions are actually set on a line in which nature is not yet complete and faces towards fulfillment. Christ as Creator of this order of nature and especially through His adoption of it through His Incarnation does not reject this order but rather fulfills it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

After rereading your post I kind of see what your hinting. The seventh day of creation will be fully realized at the resurrection of all. I completely agree with what you have stated. But there is no reason for me to believe that the judgment will lead to eternal torment. The judgment may very well lead to eternal non-existence. We don't know for sure either way. As long as I believe in a resurrection of all. My view is completely within Orthodoxy. Thank you Fr. Raphael and all that have contributed to this thread.

Paul Cowan

13-11-2007, 04:07 PM

After rereading your post I kind of see what your hinting. The seventh day of creation will be fully realized at the resurrection of all. I completely agree with what you have stated. But there is no reason for me to believe that the judgment will lead to eternal torment. The judgment may very well lead to eternal non-existence. We don't know for sure either way. As long as I believe in a resurrection of all. My view is completely within Orthodoxy. Thank you Fr. Raphael and all that have contributed to this thread.

Dear Demetrios,

I am learnig as well, but no where does Christ or the Church teach a resurrection of all. WHere does that put Christ's parable about the sheep and the goats? Or to those that did not feed, cloth, visit Him? He said away from me I don't know you.

Think of it like this. Christ is in this huge house with the door wide open. It is bright, festive, music, food everywhere and He is beckoning people to come in from the cold and eat. He is pleading with man to come in. At the Final judgement He closes the door as in the parable of the 10 virgins.

ALL mankind has this opportunity to come in out of the cold and be with Him. IF however some say, no I will not go in. I will stay out in the cold, what is God to do but to honor their decision. These people will not be saved and will spend eternity in torment.

Your idea I am sorry is not Orthdox. Yes, we like to think God will not allow any to suffer. But it is not Him who causes us to suffer it is us. I would like to think when He set the captives free from Hades, that ALL left with Him. Did they? I would like to think at the Final Judgement ALL mankind will choose Him. It IS what He wants. But He has already told us he will divide those who will nad will not choose to be with Him.

Paul

Nina

13-11-2007, 05:07 PM

Ok, tell me if I am wrong but all will be resurrected before the Last Judgment. (Creed)

Originally Posted by Demetrios http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=53464#post53464)
After rereading your post I kind of see what your hinting. The seventh day of creation will be fully realized at the resurrection of all. I completely agree with what you have stated. But there is no reason for me to believe that the judgment will lead to eternal torment. The judgment may very well lead to eternal non-existence. We don't know for sure either way. As long as I believe in a resurrection of all. My view is completely within Orthodoxy. Thank you Fr. Raphael and all that have contributed to this thread.

Demetrios, the judgment will not lead to eternal torment, but we by our own choice as Paul says will either have prepared ourselves, or not, to be in the presence of the Uncreated Light (God). (These are explained very well in the books of Metropolitan Hierotheos). Therefore it is not God, but us, the cause of the place where we would be in the next life.

Also we can not dismiss the visions and sayings of the saints who have first hand experience of such things. One is Saint Nephon. God Himself appeared to him and told him to write the vision of the Last Judgment how he saw it because that is how it will happen. I know that it is difficult to read it, but remember if we are prepared we will be able to stay in His presence and experience It as beauty and comfort, but if we are not prepared we will be not able to enjoy it. Like in the parable of the virgins that Paul mentioned.

M.C. Steenberg

13-11-2007, 06:24 PM

We must be quite clear that the Church definitely does teaching that all will be raised at the end - not just some. This is said directly in scripture, and is part of the testimony of the fathers from the very first. All are resurrected. This is linked directly to the final judgement (and, as such, you'll hear a great deal about it, for example, in the Triodion hymns of the pre-Lenten 'Sunday of the Last Judgement'); and has to do with the nature of man as bodily and spiritual. The whole person is judged by God at the end. As the person is only ever body and soul, that judgement means that everyone will be resurrected, to stand before Christ as again full human being, soul re-joined to body.

Demetrios, I wonder if your question over 'universal salvation' actually centres around incarnational understandings. All are resurrected because all are joined to Christ. This is not because of a belief or relationship of elected communion with him (which might cause some to be raised, others not), but because the communion is that of nature: he has taken human nature to himself, and made it his. This is the same nature that all humans possess as creatures of their creator; and in the incarnation this very nature is united to God's power and immortality. Hence Christ is, to take up the imagery of the Paschal troparion, the one who 'puts death to death by death', and who in this way 'restores to life those who were in the tombs'. The nature of man is united to the eternity and immortality of God. Resurrection is no longer an option: it is a fact of human existence. The question becomes, not whether one is to be resurrected, but what that resurrection will reveal of a life of communion or discommunion, of love or enmity. Resurrected - but unto what relation?

INXC, dcn Matthew

Demetrios

13-11-2007, 10:35 PM

I have to be quite honest. Nobody has bin able to explain how Christ took on human nature for all. At least make it fit into our theology. I think also that most of the early church fathers believed that he didn't. This is the way I read them. As I stated earlier. I believe there will be a final judgement of all. But I believe that the dammed will go into non-existance.Many of the early fathers state that there is a non-existance for those not in communion with Christ.

Chapter 1. Creation and the Fall Athanasius, Saint (c. 295-373)

Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption. This is what Holy Scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, "Of every tree that is in the garden thou shalt surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat, but in the day that ye do eat, ye shall surely die."77Gen. ii. 16 f. "Ye shall surely die"—not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption.

(21) Have no fears then. Now that the common Savior of all has died on our behalf, we who believe in Christ no longer die, as men died aforetime, in fulfillment of the threat of the law.

Nina

13-11-2007, 10:49 PM

Resurrected - but unto what relation?

INXC, dcn Matthew

:) Exactly.

Nina

13-11-2007, 10:55 PM

Demetrios

14-11-2007, 03:56 AM

Oh! Demetrios? Where did you learn that? No one goes into non-existence after death.

Of course saints have explained how Christ took on human nature for all. The books of Metropolitan Hierotheos deal a lot with such issues that you ask. And it is not only his thought but he incorporates the thought of the Fathers in his books. I will look for quotes and post them, if someone else does not.

Hi Nina. It is an Orthodox position to believe in non-existance since there is no dogma regarding the after life. Here is an artical by Archpriest George Florovsky. To prove it.http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/immortality_soul.htm

M.C. Steenberg

14-11-2007, 11:09 AM

Dear Demetrios, you wrote:

I have to be quite honest. Nobody has bin able to explain how Christ took on human nature for all. At least make it fit into our theology. I think also that most of the early church fathers believed that he didn't. This is the way I read them.

I am uncertain what you mean by this; but the early fathers are unequivocal in their insistance that Christ took on the human nature of all, for all. This is the whole point of the incarnation, which is - essentially - what all early patristic writing is about.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Demetrios

14-11-2007, 02:36 PM

Dear Demetrios, you wrote:

I am uncertain what you mean by this; but the early fathers are unequivocal in their insistance that Christ took on the human nature of all, for all. This is the whole point of the incarnation, which is - essentially - what all early patristic writing is about.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Your 100 % correct. I'm sorry for implying that Christ didn't take on all of human nature. In trying to convey my thoughts I went in the wrong direction.
I think I can explain this with an analogy. Lets say someone is out of work for a year. This person is desperate for a job. If this person finds a job. is the boss his savior for giving him a job or does this man have to work and produce the fruits from his job. The way I see it is that the job is open to all that want it. That is what is meant by universal. The fruits come only if one participates.

Nina

14-11-2007, 03:45 PM

Hi Nina. It is an Orthodox position to believe in non-existance since there is no dogma regarding the after life.

Demetrios, I do not think it is an Orthodox position that the souls of those condemned will go to non-existence. Souls live. There will be those living eternally in bliss and those living eternally in grief. We do not need a dogma for everything, especially for things that Christ, Himself told us when He came on earth. These are in the NT.

Also you provide:

Here is an artical by Archpriest George Florovsky. To prove it.http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/immortality_soul.htmI am not sure where do you read the conclusion about the non-existence of the damned as you say from the words of Father Florovsky because what I read from him is encapsulated in this paragraph from the link you provide:

Christ had to die, in order to bestow an abundant life upon the whole of mankind. It was not the necessity of this world. This was, as it were, the necessity of Love Divine, a necessity of a Divine order. And we fail to comprehend the mystery. Why had the true life to be revealed through the death of One, Who was Himself "the Resurrection and the Life"? The only answer is that Salvation had to be a victory over death and man's mortality. The ultimate enemy of man was precisely death. Redemption was not just the forgiveness of sins, nor was it man's reconciliation with God. It was the deliverance from sin and death. "Penitence does not deliver from the state of nature (into which man has relapsed through sin), it only discontinues the sin," says St. Athanasius. For man not only sinned but "fell into corruption." Now, the mercy of God could not permit "that creatures once made rational, and having partaken of the Word, should go to ruin and turn again to non-existence by the way of corruption." Consequently the Word of God descended and became man, assumed our body, "that, whereas man turned towards corruption, He might turn them again towards incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of his body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like a straw from the fire." (De incarnatione, 6-8).

Demetrios

14-11-2007, 07:14 PM

Nina

14-11-2007, 07:59 PM

Demetrios, I do not think it is an Orthodox position that the souls of those condemned will go to non-existence. Souls live. There will be those living eternally in bliss and those living eternally in grief. We do not need a dogma for everything, especially for things that Christ, Himself told us when He came on earth. These are in the NT.There is no dogma on the afterlife but there is a dogma on creation. It states that man is not immortal by nature. Man is immortal by grace. There is a big difference. You state that all souls live. Souls don't live on there own. It is through the Grace of god that they exist.

I did not say (ever) that souls live without the grace of God and without His Will! I said that I do not agree with your statement that souls go into non-existence after they die if they are sinners. This was the issue. And as you see above in the article of Fr. Florovsky, St. Athanasios and other Fathers of the Church, say that we do not go into non-existence because Christ was incarnated. Here it is again in more concise form:

Now, the mercy of God could not permit "that creatures once made rational, and having partaken of the Word, should go to ruin and turn again to non-existence by the way of corruption." Consequently the Word of God descended and became man, assumed our body, "that, whereas man turned towards corruption, He might turn them again towards incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of his body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like a straw from the fire." (De incarnatione, 6-8).

Paul Cowan

15-11-2007, 02:39 AM

Your 100 % correct. I'm sorry for implying that Christ didn't take on all of human nature. In trying to convey my thoughts I went in the wrong direction.
I think I can explain this with an analogy. Lets say someone is out of work for a year. This person is desperate for a job. If this person finds a job. is the boss his savior for giving him a job or does this man have to work and produce the fruits from his job. The way I see it is that the job is open to all that want it. That is what is meant by universal. The fruits come only if one participates.

If I am keeping up with your train of thought, you just answered your own question. The "job" is open to all. YOU (plural) have the choice not to take it. I can't help but feel if everyone says the moon is white, you will say it is purple. It seems your question has been answered by several people. Please restate the question or please accept the answers.

Demetrios

21-11-2007, 09:01 PM

If I am keeping up with your train of thought, you just answered your own question. The "job" is open to all. YOU (plural) have the choice not to take it. I can't help but feel if everyone says the moon is white, you will say it is purple. It seems your question has been answered by several people. Please restate the question or please accept the answers.

I don't think the original question has bin answered. It seems that you agree with me that all will not be alive after the judgment. There are many members of orthodoxy that disagree. For them. The reason there is a Hell (place of torment) in there mind is because they believe all are saved from bodily death because Christ took on all of human nature for everybody. Making everyone immortal. Because of this. Hell for them becomes a place of torment and not non-existence. Hell in the sense of torment now exists in there minds because of a theological error. What I am trying to get to the bottom of is what is the correct Orthodox belief. If one even exists on the afterlife.

Andreas Moran

22-11-2007, 01:46 PM

It seems that you agree with me that all will not be alive after the judgment.

We don't. You mentioned the Florovsky article but he says there:

Christians, as Christians, are not committed to any philosophical doctrine of immortality. But they are committed to the belief in the General Resurrection.

At death, the body dies, the soul lives on.
The soul finds itself in some degree of blessedness or some degree of torment (the partial judgment).
Which it experiences depends on how the person chose to live.
God does not inflict torment - God's love is the same and may be experienced as bliss or as like a burning fire.
At the end of the age, there will be the General Resurrection and the full judgment. Souls and bodies are re-united and all will go to their appointed place.

These are the basics. If you don't accept any part of this, which part and why?

Remember the Creed, where we say, 'I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come'.

Nina

22-11-2007, 04:34 PM

I 2nd Andrea's post.

Demetrios

22-11-2007, 06:37 PM

We don't. You mentioned the Florovsky article but he says there:

At death, the body dies, the soul lives on.
The soul finds itself in some degree of blessedness or some degree of torment (the partial judgment).
Which it experiences depends on how the person chose to live.
God does not inflict torment - God's love is the same and may be experienced as bliss or as like a burning fire.
At the end of the age, there will be the General Resurrection and the full judgment. Souls and bodies are re-united and all will go to their appointed place.

These are the basics. If you don't accept any part of this, which part and why?

Remember the Creed, where we say, 'I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come'.

I do except the general resurrection. What I don't except is the western concept of hell. Thank you.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

23-11-2007, 01:13 AM

I do except the general resurrection. What I don't except is the western concept of hell. Thank you.

Could you explain what you mean by the western concept of hell?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Demetrios

23-11-2007, 06:21 AM

Could you explain what you mean by the western concept of hell?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

To me there is no differance between the (modern) eastern and the western.

They both make god the punisher. When easterners try to say that all will exist and then say that it is gods love that will burn (leaving God blamless). They make the mistake of not knowing that God has created an eternal existace that allows for this type of torment. If they believe this. God is still the judge just as westerners believe. By creating the conditions of this torment he in affect knows the outcome of these conditions.

If I am not mistaken I think it was you who posted this one day.

On the Incarnation Athanasius, Saint (c. 295-373)
Grudging existence to none therefore.

Yuri Zharikov

23-11-2007, 07:10 AM

To me there is no differance between the (modern) eastern and the western.

They both make god the punisher. When easterners try to say that all will exist and then say that it is gods love that will burn (leaving God blamless). They make the mistake of not knowing that God has created an eternal existace that allows for this type of torment. If they believe this. God is still the judge just as westerners believe. By creating the conditions of this torment he in affect knows the outcome of these conditions.

If I am not mistaken I think it was you who posted this one day.

On the Incarnation Athanasius, Saint (c. 295-373)
Grudging existence to none therefore.

It seems we are back to square one - if God cannot be the punusher then there must be a complete restoration - apokatastasis. This position, however, as has been pointed out again and again on this thread, is not Christian and it has been condemned. Demetrios, you seem to be kicking against the pricks, for "they" do not make God the punisher, but God through the Holy Gospel tells us about the consequences (eternal consequences) of rejecting Him, His Church and His ways. Right now you are trying to solve your personal problem with the eternal torment by rejecting the (teaching of) the Church and this discussion is becoming meaningless, for your bottomline assumption is your personal correctness. So the best thing to do it to assume that you are wrong and the Church and the written word of God that she has preserved and passed down to our time are right.
Also your interprtation of St. Athansius is warped. He does not speak about our literally going into non-existence. He means that there was a time when we did not exist, i.e. we are not immortal in the same way God is immortal; we have been created and brought into existance. Our falling into sin has separated us from the life-giving grace of God and set us and the world with us on the way to corruption and decay (2nd law of thermodynamics). In proceeding along this way we, our physical side, tend towards non-existance, i.e. complete primeval chaos. Thus St. Athansios does not mean absolute non-being, but decay and corruption when he speaks about the connection between the sin and non-existance in his On Incarnation of the Word.

In the Lord,
Yura

Nina

23-11-2007, 02:29 PM

By creating the conditions of this torment he in affect knows the outcome of these conditions.

No, God did not create those. He is a loving God. We distance ourselves from Him. Why should I blame God for my sins, when I am the one committing them and separating myself from God?

Nicolaj

23-11-2007, 03:13 PM

No, God did not create those. He is a loving God. We distance ourselves from Him. Why should I blame God for my sins, when I am the one committing them and separating myself from God?

Yes Nina you are right.

God did not create something like hell, he only allowed a place for those who departed themselves from him, after the Resurrection of Christ. All before the Resurrection were in the Scheol, there He preached them the Gospel and those who wanted to be with him he took along to Heaven, which was closed until then!

The rest of Scheol to describe as Hell, well that goes on the account of those who made it Hell. And that were humans like all of us who departed themselves knowing and willingly from God!

As it is Fasting-time or as for me almost Fasting-time, this is always a pleasant opportunity to reflect on such matters!

God is Love, always!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

Demetrios

23-11-2007, 06:40 PM

It seems we are back to square one - if God cannot be the punusher then there must be a complete restoration - apokatastasis. This position, however, as has been pointed out again and again on this thread, is not Christian and it has been condemned. Demetrios, you seem to be kicking against the pricks, for "they" do not make God the punisher, but God through the Holy Gospel tells us about the consequences (eternal consequences) of rejecting Him, His Church and His ways. Right now you are trying to solve your personal problem with the eternal torment by rejecting the (teaching of) the Church and this discussion is becoming meaningless, for your bottomline assumption is your personal correctness. So the best thing to do it to assume that you are wrong and the Church and the written word of God that she has preserved and passed down to our time are right.
Also your interprtation of St. Athansius is warped. He does not speak about our literally going into non-existence. He means that there was a time when we did not exist, i.e. we are not immortal in the same way God is immortal; we have been created and brought into existance. Our falling into sin has separated us from the life-giving grace of God and set us and the world with us on the way to corruption and decay (2nd law of thermodynamics). In proceeding along this way we, our physical side, tend towards non-existance, i.e. complete primeval chaos. Thus St. Athansios does not mean absolute non-being, but decay and corruption when he speaks about the connection between the sin and non-existance in his On Incarnation of the Word.

In the Lord,
Yura

There is a punishment. It's called death. When they put someone in the electric chair. They are punishing that person. Are they not?
Eternal life as the bible decribes it has no other meaning.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

23-11-2007, 08:00 PM

There is a punishment. It's called death. When they put someone in the electric chair. They are punishing that person. Are they not?
Eternal life as the bible decribes it has no other meaning.

It's true that the Holy Fathers use such terms as punishment and penalty for what we suffer as a result of sin. Nevertheless though we still need to be very careful in how we understand the use of these words.

For example is someone in the electric chair consistent with what the Holy Fathers mean by punishment and penalty?

First off we can see that a fundamental difference is that for the Fathers the penalty for sin is not for our ultimate death unless we make such of it. Rather death which is the fruit of sin is for remedial purposes so that we may turn to Christ.

Secondly death is not the unwilling result of sin since sin very much results from our free will. Death ultimately is the cosmic result of our free assent to sin. Thus the penalty we suffer for this is in one sense not imposed from the outside.

In another sense however the penalty for sin is very much part of God's allowance for mankind. This is best seen though as part of God's purposeful economia for mankind for He does not leave death in its destructiveness but rather transforms its power.

Thus paradoxically in Christ death is not actually death which would be complete separation from God and thus annihilation of what we are. Rather in Christ death as the fruit of sin now is transformed into a doorway which opens unto life. Thus in Christ death becomes the doorway to life and life can result from death. Although the two are different- one the result of our turning away from God & the other of our turning towards Him- life and death are no longer two radically opposed states.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Demetrios

24-11-2007, 03:35 AM

It's true that the Holy Fathers use such terms as punishment and penalty for what we suffer as a result of sin. Nevertheless though we still need to be very careful in how we understand the use of these words.

For example is someone in the electric chair consistent with what the Holy Fathers mean by punishment and penalty?

First off we can see that a fundamental difference is that for the Fathers the penalty for sin is not for our ultimate death unless we make such of it. Rather death which is the fruit of sin is for remedial purposes so that we may turn to Christ.

Secondly death is not the unwilling result of sin since sin very much results from our free will. Death ultimately is the cosmic result of our free assent to sin. Thus the penalty we suffer for this is in one sense not imposed from the outside.

In another sense however the penalty for sin is very much part of God's allowance for mankind. This is best seen though as part of God's purposeful economia for mankind for He does not leave death in its destructiveness but rather transforms its power.

Thus paradoxically in Christ death is not actually death which would be complete separation from God and thus annihilation of what we are. Rather in Christ death as the fruit of sin now is transformed into a doorway which opens unto life. Thus in Christ death becomes the doorway to life and life can result from death. Although the two are different- one the result of our turning away from God & the other of our turning towards Him- life and death are no longer two radically opposed states.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Very well said Fr Raphael. I was just stressing the side of those not in Christ.

RichardWorthington

27-11-2007, 10:17 AM

Very well said Fr Raphael. I was just stressing the side of those not in Christ.
If I am following the gist of this thread, then Demetrios’s main question can posed as follows: God knows everything. He knew that some humans would reject Him and so suffer for all eternity. If He is Love, then would it not be more loving of Him not to have created us in the first place? No one who has never existed will complain about being left out of eternal life (as they do not exist to know what existence is), and those who never existed cannot suffer eternally as they never existed to feel anything! How then can we reconcile a loving Creator with the concept of suffering eternally? If we feel pity for those who may suffer eternally, does not God? Is our love greater than God’s?

Well, here’s my view of it all: Consider the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:20). The rich man in hell, when he saw Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, never said to him, ‘Forgive me, Lazarus’. The Rich man knew the source of his own suffering, being his lack of love towards Lazarus. However, knowing his selfish self-love as the source of his suffering, while suffering in hell he still chooses selfishness rather than opening up to God and his fellow humans and asking for forgiveness. (‘Opening up’ being the opposite of Adam and Eve hiding themselves in Eden from each other and from God.)

The Rich man is suffering only what he suffered while alive on earth, but the grossness of the "garments of skin" (Genesis3:21) help us to hide this suffering from ourselves. We were given this flesh/skin in order that little by little we might seek healing, since to see the fullness of our true suffering even now would be too much for us. God will wipe the tears away from every face – even those in hell – yet those in hell will desire of themselves to keep the source of their suffering: selfishness.

God is kind, gentle, and the Lover of mankind, and Christ on the Last Day will be "all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28, and see 22) – both to those in heaven and to those in hell; both will equally and identically become united with the Divine Light through the Body of Christ to the eternal delight of all; even those in hell will have this indescribable eternal delight, though in addition to their self-sought selfishness. Those in hell, however, are those who refused – and who still refuse despite seeing all– to produce a worthy spark of repentance.

But to those who do produce even a spark of higher nobility/seeking/‘something genuine’/repentance shall be given full healing, for Christ is the Healer of mankind, although this is the same healing that is given to us now. Does some medication taste horrible? We will not escape the Cross of beautiful healing and repentance, but it is far easier for us this side of our physical death, when our flesh will fall away from us and we shall see ourselves as we are.

"O Lord, if I am unworthy of heaven, then please throw me into hell, but do not leave me here without You!" – God is not less compassionate than ourselves, or than we can imagine! I think, given the option of either returning to their previous earthly existence or being returned to non-existence, those in hell but united with the divine Light will choose neither: to be in God is our in-built goal in life, and it is greater than all.

Richard

Andreas Moran

27-11-2007, 11:25 AM

This theme is often in my mind. I follow the first two paragraphs of Richard's post but I can't quite follow the argument of the following four which seem to suggest that repentance in hell is possible and may lead to salvation. The apokatastasis argument clearly removes the need for our synergy with God and our free will to choose not to be saved. But when all is said and done, I'm still left with the well-known problem of eternal suffering for temporal sins which lacks proportionality. When a brother monk said to St Silouan that heretics would suffer eternally because 'it was their own fault', St Silouan replied, 'love could not bear that'.

Demetrios

27-11-2007, 02:40 PM

Andreas Moran

27-11-2007, 02:59 PM

I don't see how there can be non-existence once a person has been brought into existence since our souls cannot cease to be after having been created, any more than angels can cease to be.

Nina

27-11-2007, 05:54 PM

The whole theme of the tread is not about hell as an eternal state of suffering, but rather a state of non-existance.

Demetrios, all brothers here are trying to point that there is no non-existence in hell. Even the article you provided does not back up that argument, but rejects it. We all have many things that we do not understand, but we all should know that we do not go into non-existence.

Demetrios

27-11-2007, 08:41 PM

I don't see how there can be non-existence once a person has been brought into existence since our souls cannot cease to be after having been created, any more than angels can cease to be.

What was the condition of Adam after falling from grace and what did he need salvation from?

Andreas Moran

27-11-2007, 10:27 PM

What was the condition of Adam after falling from grace and what did he need salvation from?

His condition was not non-existence but a fallen existence outside Paradise, the mortality of his body, and the dwelling of his soul in hades, and from that, he needed salvation which was provided by the Resurrection of Our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Hence the depiction in icons of the Resurrection of Christ pulling Adam by the arm from hades whose doors, bars and locks lie shattered by the power of Our Lord's harrowing of hades. What is Pascha about if it is not about this?

Owen Jones

27-11-2007, 11:37 PM

The term non-existence seems to be at issue here. To exist means to exist as something and for something. A thing does not simply exist in any self-contained sense. A rock exists so that it can purify water as it flows past it, so that it can provide a haven for plant and animal life to be eaten by fish and birds. It exists so that human beings can fashion the rocks into dwellings and works of art.

So to be in a state of non-existence would not mean simply nothing, but it would mean that there is no rational purpose for the thing, no direction, no proper orientation. St. Maximos states that it is possible to relapse into a state of non-existence. I take this to mean a couple of things. First of all that we do not have a guarantee of salvation in the same sense that the Roman Catholics and the Protestants believe, and that there is a fragility to our faith that must always be guarded. Second, it means that salvation has to do with being that which we were all created to be in its fullest dimension. To exist means to exist in God and for God. Non-existence means to be in a state of willful oblivion, if you will, whether it be the willful oblivion of the Pharisee who thinks he knows better than God Himself, or the willful oblivion of those who revel in their sinfulness and resent any claim upon themselves by a Higher Power. I'm sure an exegesis of the eytomology of the term existence would be helpful.

Owen Jones

27-11-2007, 11:44 PM

Demetrios

28-11-2007, 01:59 AM

An etymological dictionary states that the English word existence derives from the Old French word meaning to stand forth, appear. So we should not confuse this with thingness, but rather understand its meaning iconographically.

The Greek word given is ύπαρξη so perhaps someone hear can delve into that for us. It would be helpful to know what Greek patristic word is actually used, that ends up being translated as existence.

But I think it is fair to say that existence means to present one's life to the world as a true icon of God. Non-existence would therefore mean a false icon, a false representation, or misrepresentation.

Fair enough?

Not quite. ύπαρξη means to exist. In the modern and the anchant Greek.
The key here is how we view original sin. The west views it as the sin of Adam. We view it as the affects from that sin. They are Death and corruption. This is what we are being saved from through Baptism.

Demetrios

28-11-2007, 02:39 AM

RichardWorthington

01-12-2007, 12:17 AM

I guess it really doesn't matter what we believe. Both lead to the resurrection. What matters most is that an eternal hell of torment can do damage to one's soul by using the concept as revenge for others that don't belong to your group. In some cases it can help I suppose. By keeping the evil for doing worse evils. I wonder if the Darwinists read into this wed site?
If you mean to say that emotionally 'terrorising' others to join one's own group can damage the soul, then you are very correct. There is a world of difference between trying to inspire humility in a soul and emotionally destroying a soul (soul=living person).

Western Christianity has quite correctly been accused of this at times, and I think it is sad to say that this approach is also sometimes in the Orthodox Church. But God is good, kind, and gentle. What must be remembered is that what may be helpful to one person may be harmful to another.

Some people may need to hear about eternal suffering and that there is no "guarantee of salvation", others may need to hear about God's love keeping us safe from totally falling (and yes, when speaking about despair the Fathers rather unsurprisingly can sound like Evangelicals!), others that salvation is found in the Orthodox Faith alone, yet others that God looks kindly on everyone in the world no matter what they believe.

An earthly organisation that claims to speak for God is one thing, but God is something totally different - not far from everyone of us.

Richard
:)

Demetrios

02-12-2007, 03:09 AM

If you mean to say that emotionally 'terrorising' others to join one's own group can damage the soul, then you are very correct. There is a world of difference between trying to inspire humility in a soul and emotionally destroying a soul (soul=living person).

Western Christianity has quite correctly been accused of this at times, and I think it is sad to say that this approach is also sometimes in the Orthodox Church. But God is good, kind, and gentle. What must be remembered is that what may be helpful to one person may be harmful to another.

Some people may need to hear about eternal suffering and that there is no "guarantee of salvation", others may need to hear about God's love keeping us safe from totally falling (and yes, when speaking about despair the Fathers rather unsurprisingly can sound like Evangelicals!), others that salvation is found in the Orthodox Faith alone, yet others that God looks kindly on everyone in the world no matter what they believe.

An earthly organisation that claims to speak for God is one thing, but God is something totally different - not far from everyone of us.

Richard
:)

I agree Richard. God can not be boxed in. I started a different thread here http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=53272#post53272 if you would like to comment. As far as how one feels God. All depends on the condition of their soul. The river of fire flows in this age.

Jonathan Companik

19-05-2008, 01:48 AM

I hope I am not imposing by entering the discussion at this time. But I couldn't help weighing in with a couple of points. And as I understand Demetrios' goal here, the theme of his inquiry and defense pertains to the view that unrepentant sinners cannot experience eternal torment after the Second Coming. Instead, they will be annihilated (pass out of existence).

First, as you know, Demetrios, hell is a negative experience of God's love by those who hate and resist Him. Thus, hell is self-imposed. It is not imposed on humans by a vindictive deity.

Second, if hell is the mode by which sinners experience Divine Love, then in actuality, God would not be love if He "anihilated" sinners. He would be the vindictive deity mentioned above - the God of ancient Greek pagans, Mediaeval Rome and later Reformed theologians. God could not annihilate His own image without engaging in self hatred.

Third, therefore, if God were capable of annihilating His own image (a form of self loathing necessitating the annihilation of all, not just the wicked), there could be no heaven, resurrection, or Incarnation.

Fourth, John of Damascus sums up the history of Orthodox Dogma in his day with the telling statement that every heresy stems from the failure to know the distinction between nature and person. By virtue of the Incarnation, the human nature (containing the righteous and the unrighteous) is released from Hades and experiences a resurrection (cf. John 5). However, it is persons (hypostases), not natures as such, that experience resurrection either as eternal life or eternal condemnation.

Fifth, person recognized as distinct from nature is that which presupposes free will. If there is no eternal hell for unrepentant sinners post Second Coming / Great White Throne Judgment, then there is no free will. Annihilation has its roots roots in Gnosticism and its loathing of matter as intrinsically evil.

Sixth, to have some experience heaven in an eternal fashion but to have others annihilated is to posit two separate natures for humanity: a righteous nature and an unrighteous nature. One capable of living forever and one not. This is Gnosticism in all its dualistic glory. Thus, one really either must be a universalist (all will be saved by virtue of the Incarnation, a heresy) or a dualist (the belief that matter is evil).

Seventh, therefore, one cannot have it both ways, positing a destruction of matter in the unrighteous while maintaining the ability of others to participate in immortality. There is but one human nature created by God. He did not create two natures, one possessed of immortality and the other possessed of mortality (in terms of the future existence of body/matter).

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-05-2008, 04:44 PM

Jonathan Companik wrote:

I hope I am not imposing by entering the discussion at this time. But I couldn't help weighing in with a couple of points. And as I understand Demetrios' goal here, the theme of his inquiry and defense pertains to the view that unrepentant sinners cannot experience eternal torment after the Second Coming. Instead, they will be annihilated (pass out of existence).

I appreciate these comments and the rest of your post also.

From a Patristic perspective I think that an understanding of hell should always be connected to the relative eternity of created nature. Although I think we make a mistake if we push the balance too far away from God's active providence in what that nature experiences when it is distant from God's sustaining grace.

Undoubtedly free will is what is most important here. Created human nature is relatively eternal in the sense of its being totally dependent on God's sustaining power. Ultimately however this sustaining power needs to be seen as God's love or related to in this fashion. For it is only through our free participation in God's love which sustains our nature.

In someone like St Athanasius' terms this love would be the only thing which prevents our nature from reverting to the abyss of non being. And yet this is more suggestive than an exact description since a literal return would be to God's pre-existant logoi, something not possible due to the eternal purposes of God's love for creation. Once set in motion this love of God will not turn back.

Thus the reversion related to hell is not of nature itself but rather of the power of human nature. This power since it is in the image of its maker God has a certain kind of freedom which allows it to act consistently with itself. There is an aspect to this in which freedom is the desire to continually replicate through acting the power found within itself. Since this power however is totally reliant on God we find that we have the ability to go against ourselves, to act against our own good purposes as intended by God.

This as far as I can understand it accords with what hell is- it is rooted in our ability to act or desire in a way which goes against ourselves.

I am not saying that I know the answer to whether ultimately all things will be restored. Between our freedom to act against ourselves & God's ultimate purpose of restoration there is a line that I do not know how to cross without denying the power & consequence of our free will or God's purpose for His creation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Demetrios

20-05-2008, 04:40 PM

This is how I read the fathers.

The following is a quotation from St. Gregory Palamas' "Third Letter to Akindynos":

"According to the divine Maximus, the Logos of well-being, by grace is present unto the worthy, bearing God, Who is by nature above all beginning and end, Who makes those who by nature have a beginning and an end become by grace without beginning and without end, because the Great Paul also, no longer living the life in time, but the divine and eternal life of the indwelling Logos, became by grace without beginning and without end; and Melchisedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, not because of his created nature [i.e., his essence], according to which he began and ceased to exist, but because of the divine and uncreated and eternal grace which is above all nature and time, being from the eternal God. Paul, therefore, was created only as long as he lived the life created from non-being by the command of God. But when he no longer lived this life, but that which is present by the indwelling of God, he became uncreated by grace, as did also Melchisedek and everyone who comes to possess the Logos of God, alone living and acting within himself."

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-05-2008, 04:44 PM

Jonathan Companik

20-05-2008, 06:25 PM

This as far as I can understand it accords with what hell is- it is rooted in our ability to act or desire in a way which goes against ourselves.Father, wonderful way of putting it. Very profoundly and succinctly stated. Your post in its whole context was quite enlightening as well. And if I may interact with this last comment of yours:

I am not saying that I know the answer to whether ultimately all things will be restored. Between our freedom to act against ourselves & God's ultimate purpose of restoration there is a line that I do not know how to cross without denying the power & consequence of our free will or God's purpose for His creation.I have wondered about this, and moreso recently after finishing The Mystery of Faith by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, wherein lies an interesting discussion on this very topic in the final chapter on eschatology.

Have you ever read the book, Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor by Orthodox scholar, Dr. Joseph P. Farrell? I need to re-read it before I could get too far describing it, but it was a life-transforming experience for me coming out of Calvinism. The book is literally a masterpiece, and embodies the most comprehensive and precise thrashing of dialectical philosophy I have ever seen using the writings of St. Maximos as a critique against Origen on the one hand, and Augustine on the other.

To grossly summarize this marvelous academic work, essentially he exposes the dualistic nature of Origen's apokatastasis with Augustine's belief that true freedom in the eschaton constitutes the eradication of free choice - i.e., that true freedom constitutes freedom from having to make choices. Both of the systems of these men are compared and contrasted with Plotinus' philosophy, and uncovers striking similarities. Both Origen and Augustine had one significant concept in common: For them, free choice assumes the inherent ability to choose against ourselves (to choose what is evil). Where is theosis in this?

And that is the antidote to all false dualisms, dichotomies and dialectical machinations of the natural reason it seems to me: precisely this theosis. The book, incidentally, goes on to explain how Maximus justified the non-eradication of free choice in the eschaton, with his notion of the gnomic will playing a key role.

It seems to me that it may (and I emphasize may, wishing not to be too dogmatic or overly presumptive) be two ways to define the term "necessary" when discussing the possibility of apokatastasis. We could argue that apokatastasis will occur as a "necessity" in the sense of it being a divinely compelling product of God's essence (heresy, as this would make evil itself a product of His essence also); or we could argue that it is necessary from the standpoint that love (positive existence) is inherently more powerful than evil (non-being) precisely because it is eternal by nature and thus necessarily antecedent to evil.

A correlative of this is that the eternal image of God positively exists in every human person, and thus the will to be conformed with that image (i.e., to be consistent with oneself) is in the long term more powerful than the desire to be autonomously fragmented and closer to "non-being".

Just as it is "necesary" (in a certain sense) that those who achieve theosis not be capable of sinning in the eschaton (precisely because we have become truly free), could we not also argue for this form of "necessity" with respect to apokatastasis? (I wish to make the caveat here that I do not believe it possible for fallen angels to be saved , so I qualify the term as being for myself purely anthropological).

Perhaps I should also say at this juncture that my eschatology does not mesh quite as well with the popular (though not dogmatic) Orthodox model of a progressively worsening earthly history prior to the Second Coming. In fact, I take the opposite view: that while history goes through seasons of trial/persecution and spiritual prosperity, as a whole the cosmos is moving towards a time when the Church's membership (the Kingdom) on earth will be co-extensive with the world's population just prior to the transfiguration of all things.

So my understanding of apokatastasis, whether or not it is possible to encompass all of those unrepentant who have died before the final Judgment (though that is certainly possible, I suppose), will at least include all who are citizens of this earth prior to the fullness of the manifestation of Christ's Kingdom at the Second coming. I say this because I view the process of cosmic transfiguration as being precisely that - a process - and not a discontinuous, apocalyptic, sudden event in which God arrives to consume the earth by fire along with all those who resist Him. I find this cosmology to have more in common with Manichaenism than with true Sacred Tradition.

Just the ramblings of a hyper-active imagination.

Your brother and servant in Christ,
Jonathan

Demetrios

21-05-2008, 03:00 AM

I would think that hell is eternal life without that uncreated grace that St Maximus refers to.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
Father bless,

One could see it that way father. It all depends on how one views our nature. If all of nature was incorporated into one, than what you have stated would be true, just as in Adam all die all in Christ will be made alive.
Wouldn't it be true that if all of Nature were in one man than at the time of his death, all men would die.
Nature is saved in the hypostasis of Christ alone. It is thought Christ that we are saved when we become members of his body.
Isn't that what the referral is all about?

Paul Cowan

21-05-2008, 05:31 AM

Demetrios

21-05-2008, 05:59 AM

It is through Christ man and nature is saved. Remember God destroyed all living things on the earth including nature during the flood. Adam's death was carried on through his remnant, Noah. It was not until Christ died AND rose again that all man kind and nature are saved through Him.

Through one man we die and through another God-man we live. eternally. Had Christ not roisen from the dead, our nature would still be unto death. God saved us from eternal death by not allowing Adam or Eve to eat of the tree of Life. Had they, we would be eternally in death or rather eternally in our sin of disobedience.

Paul
I don't completely disagree. However, how could a Tree of life lead to death? Shouldn't a tree of life lead to life. If all men are immortal than how should we read.

Mathew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Paul Cowan

21-05-2008, 06:44 AM

I am ok talking on topical subjects. When you start getting deeper into theology, I have to pass you off to bigger minds.

It is thought that the tree of life is also the cross of Christ. When Eve and Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they ate to their disobedience, thus sin was brought into the world. If God had allowed them to eat also of the tree of life, we would have for eternity been in a sinful state. Banishing man from Paradise, it is believed the tree of life sank back into the earth. The tree of life was then raised with Christ on it on Golgotha. When Christ also went into the earth, He was raised to new Life. A life we now may enjoy provided we stay obedient.

Keeping the tree of life from us when He did, God saved us from ourselves until His Son could come and redeem us for life eternal.

As Herman is fond of saying,

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Paul

Andreas Moran

26-05-2008, 04:41 PM

Nearly all of this thread has been about man though the title is 'Apokatastasis of nature'. I would like, if I may, to focus on nature for a moment. The passage which interests me is Romans 8:19-23. Paul speaks of the 'earnest expectation' of the created world, that it awaits the blessedness of the age to come. As St John Chrysostom points out (Homily XIV on Romans), creation 'was made subject to vanity' - that is, to decay and corruption - by man; the ground became cursed because of man's sin: see Genesis 3:13. Creation suffered innocently from the Fall, the sin of man. Creation, however, is to be made new: see Psalm 101 (LXX), Isaiah 65:17, 2Peter 3:13, and Revelation 21:1. We have the highest reason as ones given the 'firstfruits of the Spirit'; but creation has some sort of capacity for responding to man; it is said that water changes its properties when it is blessed, and food tastes better when cooked with prayers and blessed. Do not the higher forms of creatures have some sort of life force? I think St Luke the Blessed Surgeon speaks of this. St John Chrysostom says that though nature is 'devoid' of 'mind and reason' yet it does groan. And if it was thought to groan in the fourth century, how much more so now! So, I wonder if Paul was speaking not only poetically in describing nature as groaning and travailing in pain. Creation responded to the Fall and continues to respond to our sins. In a way which we cannot understand creation does have the 'earnest expectation' of which Paul speaks. Being innocent, we may suppose from the passages of scripture quoted above that for creation there will be apokatastasis. But not for man.

Anna Stickles

04-11-2008, 09:11 PM

How is there an apokatastasis of human nature in full and not a apokatastasis of souls in full? Mr Demetrios

I have wondered exactly the same thing and would like to resurrect this discussion.

The role of free will and its consequences will not disappear at the resolution of all things.

Since this power however is totally reliant on God we find that we have the ability to go against ourselves, to act against our own good purposes as intended by God.

This as far as I can understand it accords with what hell is- it is rooted in our ability to act or desire in a way which goes against ourselves.
Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael here seems to be stressing the fact that what keeps the individual human soul from participating in the restoration of our nature is our own free choice to reject a participation in Christ and His work of redeeming our nature, and yet is not part of the nature that Christ redeemed our will? At the resolution of all things will there be the freedom to continue choosing evil or will there only be the freedom to choose according to our nature as originally created?

I've been reading St Maximus the Confessor and it seems to me he is saying our ability to act against ourselves is a result of the fall if I am understanding his idea of gnomic will correctly. Doesn't St Maximus teach that this gnomic will is healed as part of our restoration? I am not proposing here that this restoration be looked at as a free blanket of forgiveness. St Gregory of Nyssa says
"When, over long periods of time, evil has been removed and those now lying in sin have been restored to their original state, all creation will join in united thanksgiving, both those whose purification has involved punishment and those who never needed purification at all" (Catechetical Oration 26). Clearly indicating that there are consequences that have to be suffered in order for us to be purified.

St Maximus says,
For in truth it was necessary that the Lord--who is by nature wise and just and capable--not in his wisdom, ignore the means of curing us, nor, in his justice, arbitrarily save humanity when it had fallen under sin by its own free will, nor, in his omnipotence, falter in bringing the healing of humanity to completeion" Ad Thalassium 61 (On The Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ, p 134) Again stating here that the abuse of free will has its just consequences.

I would think that hell is eternal life without that uncreated grace that St Maximus refers to.

Did Adam and Eve in paradise have the uncreated grace that St Maximus refers to or only created grace? Paul would seem to teach the latter. (I Cor 15:40-46) St Symeon the New Theologian too, seems to teach a difference between paradise and the Eternal Kingdom of Light. Therefore at the eschaton will some dwell in paradise and some in God rather then some in heaven and some in hell?

They created a hell in a sense because sin became immortal.
I agree that there are large problems with a doctrine whose logical consequences are an eternal hell, when the Church clearly teaches that Christ destroyed hell.

Should the thought that our final state will be a good one cause us to be lazy? Well as said above it seems to me that even those Orthodox theologians (if I am understanding them rightly) who teach a more complete restoration still say we have to go through judgement accoding to the hardness of our will and the stubborness of our rebellion --and the Fathers teach that our sinful actions are what cause this hardness to get harder, while our ascetic struggle is what helps soften us up for God to reach us. I imagine that any suffering of the soul undergoes as a purification of it's rebellion at the final judgement is going to be far worse then whatever small struggles we go through here. I've noticed myself that it's always easier when we consciously cooperate with God then when we are wacked by circumstances that force us to wake up.

Jonathan Companik

05-11-2008, 03:28 AM

Fr Raphael here seems to be stressing the fact that what keeps the individual human soul from participating in the restoration of our nature is our own free choice to reject a participation in Christ and His work of redeeming our nature, and yet is not part of the nature that Christ redeemed our will?

Hi, Anna!

I hope you don't mind my jumping in here. St. Maximus is my patron saint and I am indebted to his work and thought as it was instrumental in my conversion to the Holy Orthodox Faith.

I want to affirm, first, that you are correct in that will is an aspect of nature, and ergo the natural will of man was redeemed in the Incarnation of Christ. Since Christ, being perfect man, is consubstantial with all men, the apokatastasis of nature follows by virtue of Christ's incarnation and resurrection. All men are raised up on the Last Day, either to everlasting Ill-Being (Hell) or everlasting Well-Being (Paradise/Heaven). In short, Christ's restoration of the human nature was a restoration from Hades (i.e., the grave), not Hell. Hell has always been a future threat, not a present reality from which men need to be rescued by the Incarnation.

Also, since will is an aspect of nature proper, and person is not identical with nature, not all persons are automatically going to paradise/heaven. To suggest otherwise would be to conflate nature and person in a manner precluded by Holy Tradition, and take us right back to monotheletism (or Nestorianism, take your pick). Monotheletism = One Divine Person, One Divine Will; Nestorianism = Two Persons (Human Jesus / Divine Son) Before the Union, Two Wills; Orthodoxy = One Divine Person, Two Wills (One Divine, One Human).

At the resolution of all things will there be the freedom to continue choosing evil or will there only be the freedom to choose according to our nature as originally created?Interestingly, if we adopt Origen's universalism (confusion of nature/person), our redemption merely takes us back to where Adam was before the Fall, where recurring falls become a necessary aspect of his [Origen's] theology. Thus, free will for Origen and other universalists insists on a dialectic of opposition between the natural will and the divine will, where synergistic conformity to the divine will by the human will is deemed an impossibility without the divine will "overriding" the human will. (Interestingly, both Origen and Augustine essentially agree on this dialectic of opposition, but reach different conclusions, with Augustine negating the idea of free choice existing in the Eschaton.) Necessity/Determinism is a classic feature of the theology of both Origen and Augustine, they simply take this assumed premise in opposite directions.

St. Maximus avoids these pit falls, as I will try to explain in response to your following comments:

I've been reading St Maximus the Confessor and it seems to me he is saying our ability to act against ourselves is a result of the fall if I am understanding his idea of gnomic will correctly. Doesn't St Maximus teach that this gnomic will is healed as part of our restoration? I am not proposing here that this restoration be looked at as a free blanket of forgiveness. St Gregory of Nyssa says Clearly indicating that there are consequences that have to be suffered in order for us to be purified.The gnomic will for St. Maximus need not be "healed" because it is not an aspect of the natural will, but rather a MODE of willing proper to the hypostasis (or person). Therefore, the gnomic will is not a result of the fall, but a characteristic inherent to the first Adam (and his descendants after the Fall). Christ, on the other hand, does not will according to this principle because He was a divine (uncreated) Person.

Did Adam and Eve in paradise have the uncreated grace that St Maximus refers to or only created grace? Paul would seem to teach the latter. (I Cor 15:40-46) St Symeon the New Theologian too, seems to teach a difference between paradise and the Eternal Kingdom of Light. Therefore at the eschaton will some dwell in paradise and some in God rather then some in heaven and some in hell?The Orthodox Church rejects the existence of created grace (i.e., the super addition of grace to nature). Grace is uncreated, and works/operates synergistically through nature.

The difference between paradise and heaven is merely one of completeness. Paradise upon death is an anticipation ('earnest' or 'downpayment') on the deification of the flesh and the union of the natural body with the deified soul.

Anna Stickles

05-11-2008, 02:38 PM

Jonathan,

Thanks for the comments.
I too have had a lot of Calvinistic influence and am attempting to untangle myself from wrong habits of thinking and wrong presuppositions. My relationship with the Fathers right now is like having a bunch of peices to a puzzle and no box lid to show me the complete picture and many of the pieces are similar and so I can't tell when I have put together pieces that don't really go together.

The gnomic will for St. Maximus need not be "healed" because it is not an aspect of the natural will, but rather a MODE of willing proper to the hypostasis (or person). Therefore, the gnomic will is not a result of the fall, but a characteristic inherent to the first Adam (and his descendants after the Fall).

This is helpful, as one of the questions I've wrestled with is the relationship of each individual person to the "whole Adam" as St Silouan puts it. This doesn't answer the question, but at least it is a piece to that puzzle. I think we still have to deal with the question of what causes the split between the 2 wills and how this split is healed in Christ. It seems to me that a second fall is inevitable if Christ did not somehow heal this split also such that the conditions at the final restoration are different then what was in the garden.

Also if the gnomic will is currently held captive ("I do not do what I want to do..." as St Paul says and we have all experienced) then maybe it doesn't technically need to be 'healed' but it does need to be set free and it needs to be set free in such a way as that freedom cannot again be lost.

One of the questions I have is, What exactly is meant by "will" verses "mode of willing" Maurice Blondel wrote a book Action in which he talks about a willing will and a willed will. Since coming across St Maximus I have wondered how much overlap there is. Blondel is much more specific about exactly what he perceived going on within himself then anything I have run across in St Maximus' work even if Blondel was dealing on a more scientific and philosophical rather then theological level. If anyone has read both of these authors I would love to hear their comments.

The rest of your post about Origen and Augustine reminded me that because these things are a mystery we are not really going to get satisfactory answers, but that what the Church Fathers give us is guidance in the right versus the wrong way to think about these things. This, I think is precisely where I am bogging down. I am not sure of the subtle differences where one has crossed the line. I think we must understand that we have a will that is free but constrained by our own nature, and avoid any theology that has as its logical consequence either determinism or a libertarian free will. Exactly how that works out in the practical aspects of Patristic theology --Well, I'm rather lost as of yet.

I personally am not so sure the problem was Origen's universalism, but from what I have been reading (The Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ) it seems to be his order of existence and redemption. I'm out of time now but I can get some quotes if you wish. Discussing a book always helps me grasp things better.

Father David Moser

05-11-2008, 03:53 PM

Did Adam and Eve in paradise have the uncreated grace that St Maximus refers to or only created grace?

For the Orthodox Christian, all grace is "uncreated" - "created grace" is a Roman Catholic concept which is not found in Orthodoxy. This is the same issue that is at the heart of the writings of St Gregory Palamas.

Paul would seem to teach the latter. (I Cor 15:40-46) St Symeon the New Theologian too, seems to teach a difference between paradise and the Eternal Kingdom of Light. Therefore at the eschaton will some dwell in paradise and some in God rather then some in heaven and some in hell?

I think perhaps you are misreading or misunderstanding St Symeon as the teaching that you sketch above sounds more like the Jehovah Witnesses than Orthodoxy. Perhaps one of the things that you need to take into account is not to collapse the timeline of life beyond the grave. While there is paradise and torment - neither state is considered permanent and no one enters the eternal state of heaven or hell until after the general resurrection and the Great Judgement. Thus (back to your comments) paradise and the Eternal Kingdom of Light are both to be found in Orthodoxy, but they do not "overlap" as it were so that some are in one place while others are in the other. The other thing to remember is that our Lord said, "In my Father's house are many mansions..." which the fathers teach is a reference to the different rewards that will be received in the next life. Thus within the "eternal kingdom of light" all will not be homogenous, but rather there will be differences of place (just as there are different ranks of angels perhaps)

I agree that there are large problems with a doctrine whose logical consequences are an eternal hell, when the Church clearly teaches that Christ destroyed hell.

Could you please elaborate on how you came to this conclusion? Christ did not "destroy" hell but defeated hades and broke the gates so that no one was held captive and remained in hell against his will. This also only works if you assume that hell is a place and not a state of being. There is a clear thread of teaching in the Church that heaven and hell are both different experiences of the all encompassing presence of God. Hell is not some place to which we go - hell is our own reaction to the presence of our God who is an all consuming fire.

Fr David Moser

Jonathan Companik

05-11-2008, 07:10 PM

Dear Anna,

Welcome to the Orthodox Church, my fellow former virtually hopeless Calvinist! :)

This is a great topic. Thanks for your willingness to interact.

I think we still have to deal with the question of what causes the split between the 2 wills and how this split is healed in Christ. It seems to me that a second fall is inevitable if Christ did not somehow heal this split also such that the conditions at the final restoration are different then what was in the garden.

I agree. The gnomic will of man in the Garden didn't need "healing" (in the sense of redemption from sin), but needed to be "elevated" via deification so that man, so synergistically conformed to His Creator, would not choose non-being/existence (evil, thus denying himself), but rather the fullness of being on a creaturely (finite) level.

Thus man will not lose His gnomic mode of willing in the Eschaton, but it will be so conformed to God that he will not want to sin, but rather choose among any number of equal goods--equal in a moral sense, but unequal from the standpoint of personhood (since not all deified persons will value or choose to experience the delights of paradise in the same way).

One of the questions I have is, What exactly is meant by "will" verses "mode of willing" Maurice Blondel wrote a book Action in which he talks about a willing will and a willed will.I haven't read that book, so unfortunately I can't comment; but Dr. Joseph Farrell has an excellent book, Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor that has a very helpful section on this question, and I will try to reference when I have access to it back at the house.

Also, the guys over at Energetic Procession are always very helpful with these kinds of philosophical issues--not that Monachos.net isn't! But the gentlemen over at Mr. Robinson's blog virtually specialize in this sort of thing. (Their entries on libertarian free will are superb, too.)

I think we must understand that we have a will that is free but constrained by our own nature, and avoid any theology that has as its logical consequence either determinism or a libertarian free will. Exactly how that works out in the practical aspects of Patristic theology --Well, I'm rather lost as of yet.Anna, this is very interesting because this statement reminds me of my initial discomfort with the predominant take on LFW by the Orthodox Church when I was inquiring and even in the midst of officially entering the Church.

I think what has ultimately satisfied me along those lines is the reality that grace is uncreated. The limitedness of my nature is not in my inability to choose perfectly freely (in the libertarian sense), but in the fact that I am finite--thus my libertarian free will is limited by my finiteness (preserving the distinction between the sovereign, infinite Creator and the creature who cannot do anything that is not circumscribed by the infiniteness of God). So even if we grant LFW (which we must), it is not to argue for "autonomy" in the strict sense of graceless effort (per Pelagianism).

I personally am not so sure the problem was Origen's universalism, but from what I have been reading (The Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ) it seems to be his order of existence and redemption. I'm out of time now but I can get some quotes if you wish. Discussing a book always helps me grasp things better.I have that book. It's awesome. I need to read it again. Cite anything you like from it, and I'll make the time to re-read those sections.

I should correct myself in saying that the gnomic will in Maximus is characterized by doubt and hesitation in choosing between good and evil, something Christ did not suffer from. It is not true that the ability to choose between equal goods in the Eschaton is predicated of the gnomic will. So the gnomic will not be "elevated" or "deified" since it is not an aspect of nature but a mode of hypostatic existence.

Demetrios

05-11-2008, 09:23 PM

Gnomic comes from the Greek word γνώμη which means opinion. St Maximos I believe is trying to explain what today is so commonly known as freewill. But, Free will doesn't exist in Orthodoxy in the same sense. It is a western term. St Maximos is make a distinction between a natural will that is always inclined towards god While the opinionated Gnomic will is confused and doesn't know it's heading and needs alignment. Once the Gnomic will is in alignment it becomes natural or has achieved theosis.

Anna Stickles

05-11-2008, 09:55 PM

For the Orthodox Christian, all grace is "uncreated" - "created grace" is a Roman Catholic concept which is not found in Orthodoxy. This is the same issue that is at the heart of the writings of St Gregory Palamas.

Thank you Father for the corrections. Where is the embarrssed emoticon when you need it. When Jonathan brought this to my attention I realized I had been very careless in my wording. I was not trying to say that grace was created, I was trying to differentiate between the level?type?mode? of grace present in natural creation and that level?type?mode? of grace present in deified creation. I do remember a quote in St Gregory Palamas about different levels or types of God's energy but cannot find it now.

While there is paradise and torment - neither state is considered permanent and no one enters the eternal state of heaven or hell until after the general resurrection and the Great Judgement....In my Father's house are many mansions..." which the fathers teach is a reference to the different rewards that will be received in the next life. Thus within the "eternal kingdom of light" all will not be homogenous, but rather there will be differences of place (just as there are different ranks of angels perhaps)...There is a clear thread of teaching in the Church that heaven and hell are both different experiences of the all encompassing presence of God.--hell is our own reaction to the presence of our God

I've been seeing the differences of 'place' as differences in the level or type of the energy of grace one particpates in and what we participate in as being predicated on our reaction to the presence of God. This seems a bit different then what you are saying here. The way I was thinking was making paradise permanent and no doubt this needs to be corrected, I do remember now various quotes that talk about the divinization of the entire creation and to make paradise permanent is is some way to deny this. Also I was not differentiating between torment and hell. Maybe some quotes on the differences between these would be helpful.

Going back to what I was saying about the level or type of grace I think I have had in my mind something along the lines of the electromagnetic spectrum, where it is all one energy but as the intensity increases we experience it differently. I guess I had in mind that in the end, each person would kind of fall to participating in their own level wherein they could bear the presence of God. What you seem to be offering is a paradigm under which a person is stuck forever in a Presence so great that they eternally torment themselves between desire and rejection.

Right now a lot of this is half formed thoughts.

Michael Stickles

07-11-2008, 02:18 AM

For the Orthodox Christian, all grace is "uncreated" - "created grace" is a Roman Catholic concept which is not found in Orthodoxy.

I have seen "created grace" essentially defined as that which is wrought in us by the uncreated grace of God. Does Orthodoxy have a different term for this concept?

In Christ,
Michael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-11-2008, 03:21 PM

I have seen "created grace" essentially defined as that which is wrought in us by the uncreated grace of God. Does Orthodoxy have a different term for this concept?

In Christ,
Michael

I am quite sure that this would be called sanctification.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Anna Stickles

07-11-2008, 10:40 PM

I am quite sure that this would be called sanctification.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I was doing some research on this and found out that created grace is now commonly called sanctifying grace in the RCC.

Just to reference the whole discussion we have been having on the sanctification of language:

Why do we bother to specify uncreated grace if there is no such thing as created grace? I mean isn't this kind of like saying, -- I swim in wet water. The mind kind of autimatically assumes that the alternative must exist if there is an adjective like this before it.

Jonathan, et al...

I found an interesting article relating to these issues here (http://www.theandros.com/restoration.html). It's called
"Eschatology and final restoration (apokatastasis) in Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximos the Confessor"

Demetrios

08-11-2008, 04:26 AM

I found an interesting article relating to these issues here (http://www.theandros.com/restoration.html). It's called
"Eschatology and final restoration (apokatastasis) in Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximos the Confessor"
I love St Maximos. He is so poetic. The answer is right in front of us and yet always evades us.
I just love this quote.

When the Word of God becomes bright and shining in us, and His face is dazzling as the sun, then also will His clothes be radiant, that is, the clear and distinct words of the Holy Scripture of the Gospels now no longer veiled.

M.C. Steenberg

10-11-2008, 06:05 PM

Above, Mr Companik wrote the following:

The gnomic will for St. Maximus need not be "healed" because it is not an aspect of the natural will, but rather a MODE of willing proper to the hypostasis (or person). Therefore, the gnomic will is not a result of the fall, but a characteristic inherent to the first Adam (and his descendants after the Fall). Christ, on the other hand, does not will according to this principle because He was a divine (uncreated) Person.

St Maximus' proclamation of gnome and 'gnomic will' actually change over his lifetime. Fundamentally, the gnome is the inclination of will: that toward which the will moves and acts. As such, it is not really a 'thing', not really a type or kind of will. Those St Maximus identifies as the logos of the will (i.e. its actual nature and being) and its tropos (its actualisation, or manifestation - that is, how the logos is actually expressed and lived out). The gnome is, at its core, the habitude of inclination: that which causes the tropos of the will to incline one way or the other, in its expression of human freedom.

In his earlier discussions, before the monothelete controversies fully gripped his attention, St Maximus speaks of the gnome almost always in this way -- that is, as an inclination, which all possess as free agents in the expresison of the human will. Thus Christ, too, is talked about as possessing a gnome of will that inclines towards the good. However, as the debate raged and questions of deliberation and inclination became more and more bound up in Christological questions of immutability, sin, etc., St Maximus comes more and more to talk of gnome specifically as a fallen inclination of the will as a result of sin -- and in this context, in his later writings, specifically denies it of Christ (i.e., claims that Christ does not have a 'gnomic will').

This poses a certain potential problem, if one reads those comments in extraction, since they would seem to indicate that Christ as human did not possess an aspect of the human condition shared by all other humans. But here we have a good example of why we need to read the works of the fathers as a whole: St Maximus' articulation of gnome is directly tied into its usage in wider debates.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

Jonathan Companik

11-11-2008, 05:27 AM

I've been seeing the differences of 'place' as differences in the level or type of the energy of grace one particpates in and what we participate in as being predicated on our reaction to the presence of God. This seems a bit different then what you are saying here. The way I was thinking was making paradise permanent and no doubt this needs to be corrected, I do remember now various quotes that talk about the divinization of the entire creation and to make paradise permanent is is some way to deny this.

Anna, I know the above was addressing Fr. Moser, but I wanted to comment on it because it is relevant to something I speculated on in my very last post prior to your resurrecting the thread recently. Your observation here regarding the (seeming) problematic of God deifying creation and making paradise a permanent reality in light of it (and correspondingly, hell) being dependent upon the way we react to God's uncreated grace as individual persons is an observation I have considered, and is actually one of the reasons I tend to favor the idea that prior to the deification of creation on a final corporate level, all currently alive on earth will not only be sacramentally Orthodox, but truly inwardly Orthodox.

I don't want to sound presumptuous or dogmatic, for far greater minds would undoubtedly strongly disagree wih this proposal. I would be remiss if I did not bow in profound humility to those whose knowledge, piety and example (both now and throughout history) embarrassingly exposes my own inadequacy on so many levels. Nevertheless, theological progress must go on, and speculation (so long as it remains within the doctrnal/dogmatic bounds of the Faith) can't be unhealthy.

I have rejected (as advanced by some Orthodox) the proposal that perhaps it is not impossible for some after death in Hades to receive the grace of Christ before it is too late (i.e., before the Second Coming). My main reason for rejecting it is that it turns Hades into Purgatory--a space-time (created) "location" of torment. So I would reject what I will call Hypothetical Universalism (HU).

In rejecting this, then, I would also have to reject (which I do) any philosophical/theological suggestion of divine "coercion" in cosmology and eschatology: To say that a certain thing "must" occur falls dangerously near the Western "god" of Absolute Divine Simplicity (ADS) and the phenomenon of unconditional predestination.

Yet, I think there is a valid sense in which we may argue that it is only "natural" for thus and such to occur--considered within the proper framework of Orthodox Trinitarian theology, Christology and anthropology. For example, is it not appropriate to speak in a general sense of sin being beyond the scope of God's nature, or beyond the ability of Christ to commit or beyond His ability to desire? If it is appropriate to speak this way, would it not be appropriate to suggest that Good is "stronger" than evil--on two levels: (1) it preexists evil, for its source is God, and (2) it has a real (cataphatic) existence, not just a negative (self-denying/canceling) effect (such as evil). Similarly, is it not true that it will be impossible (in a sense outside the Augustinian one) for deified creatures to sin?

If we grant this, is it not possible to expect that a corporate/creational deification should "naturally" occur in a manner that is consistent with the ongoing individual/personal receiving of deifying grace by persons over time? If we don't do this, aren't we faced with a western dialectic in which nature and person remain opposed (and thus identified/confused)? It seems that we would wind up either embracing a (cosmic) Manichaenism (God interferes and separates the sheep and goats, suddenly/temporally in a violent manner), or everyone (down to the last person, both alive and previously living) must be saved (universalism). Of course, neither of these are suitable options.

Jonathan Companik

11-11-2008, 05:45 AM

Above, Mr Companik wrote the following:

St Maximus' proclamation of gnome and 'gnomic will' actually change over his lifetime. Fundamentally, the gnome is the inclination of will: that toward which the will moves and acts. As such, it is not really a 'thing', not really a type or kind of will. Those St Maximus identifies as the logos of the will (i.e. its actual nature and being) and its tropos (its actualisation, or manifestation - that is, how the logos is actually expressed and lived out). The gnome is, at its core, the habitude of inclination: that which causes the tropos of the will to incline one way or the other, in its expression of human freedom.

In his earlier discussions, before the monothelete controversies fully gripped his attention, St Maximus speaks of the gnome almost always in this way -- that is, as an inclination, which all possess as free agents in the expresison of the human will. Thus Christ, too, is talked about as possessing a gnome of will that inclines towards the good. However, as the debate raged and questions of deliberation and inclination became more and more bound up in Christological questions of immutability, sin, etc., St Maximus comes more and more to talk of gnome specifically as a fallen inclination of the will as a result of sin -- and in this context, in his later writings, specifically denies it of Christ (i.e., claims that Christ does not have a 'gnomic will').

This poses a certain potential problem, if one reads those comments in extraction, since they would seem to indicate that Christ as human did not possess an aspect of the human condition shared by all other humans. But here we have a good example of why we need to read the works of the fathers as a whole: St Maximus' articulation of gnome is directly tied into its usage in wider debates.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

Thank you so much for this, Mr. Steenberg. I would like to organize a couple of thoughts before I reply. This was a helpful summary of St. Maximus' development of gnome.