Universal Salvation?

[Elvendon]

Something I have been thinking about for a long time is Apocatastasis - that is, universal salvation. Originally posited over a thousand years ago by Origen, a greek early church scholar, and later carried on by many thinkers from Saint Gregory of Nyssa to Julian of Norwich, it teaches that all moral agents will be ultimately saved - though evil individuals will be punished for an undefined length of time - even the sourest, most evil devil will return to God.

This teaching was declared anathema by the Synod of Constantinople in 543. My question is, what do other posters here think about this teaching? Do you think it should be more readily accepted by modern Christians or do you believe there is a better justification for eternal punishment?

Blessed be the Holy Three

Elvendon

 

[Katzpur]

Something I have been thinking about for a long time is Apocatastasis - that is, universal salvation. Originally posited over a thousand years ago by Origen, a greek early church scholar, and later carried on by many thinkers from Saint Gregory of Nyssa to Julian of Norwich, it teaches that all moral agents will be ultimately saved - though evil individuals will be punished for an undefined length of time - even the sourest, most evil devil will return to God.

This teaching was declared anathema by the Synod of Constantinople in 543. My question is, what do other posters here think about this teaching? Do you think it should be more readily accepted by modern Christians or do you believe there is a better justification for eternal punishment?

Blessed be the Holy Three

Elvendon

Hmmm. Can't wait to talk about this. Unfortunately, I have to be away from my computer for a couple of hours, so I guess I'm have to wait.

 

[Quiddity]

Universalism is not possible to the vast majority of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). The idea assumes that if given enough time everyone will choose God. It should be obvious to most of us that the most crystal clear evidence, logic, reason, etc. is not enough for some to still seek a relationship with God. They would deny Him even if He was right before their eyes.

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

Universalism is not possible to the vast majority of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). The idea assumes that if given enough time everyone will choose God. It should be obvious to most of us that the most crystal clear evidence, logic, reason, etc. is not enough for some to still seek a relationship with God. They would deny Him even if He was right before their eyes.

Romans 14:11 appears to state otherwise. "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

 

[Katzpur]

Something I have been thinking about for a long time is Apocatastasis - that is, universal salvation. Originally posited over a thousand years ago by Origen, a greek early church scholar, and later carried on by many thinkers from Saint Gregory of Nyssa to Julian of Norwich, it teaches that all moral agents will be ultimately saved - though evil individuals will be punished for an undefined length of time - even the sourest, most evil devil will return to God.

I think Origen was onto something. I don't know that I'd go along with every detail of what he believed, but I do believe that the vast, vast majority of mankind will, in fact, ultimately receive some degree of salvation. I believe there is a period of time after death when each of us will continue to exist as cognizant beings, but without our physical bodies. During this period of time, as we await the resurrection of our physical bodies, we will continue to grow spiritually and will have the capacity to grasp concepts that managed to elude us for the 80 or so years we lived on earth. Those who never heard of Jesus Christ will come to know of Him. They will not be in His presence, so they will have to accept Him on faith, relying on the testimonies of other believers, but just like anyone who accepted Christ during this life, they will have that opportunity before being called to stand before their Creator to be judged. Others, who knew of Him but rejected Him during their mortal lives, will again be exposed to His gospel and will likely, over what may be years and years, come to realize that He was, in fact, their Savior and that, through sincere repentance, they can also be forgiven for their sins. The longer they put off their repentence, the less time they will have to enjoy the peace and joy that comes to those who believe, but for them it will at least be better late than never.

I believe there will be a relative few who, although they may come to a full and complete understanding of who He was and what His sacrifice could have accomplished for them, consciously and willfully reject Him. They will want no part of His love or His mercy, and these will not be forced upon them. There won't be many of these, however. Who knows, perhaps even Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Ladin will eventually come around. They will continue to suffer in some way for the heinous atrocities they committed until they finally come to the realization that the price has already been paid, at which time they too can experience the grace and forgiveness offered them.

This teaching was declared anathema by the Synod of Constantinople in 543. My question is, what do other posters here think about this teaching? Do you think it should be more readily accepted by modern Christians or do you believe there is a better justification for eternal punishment?

No kidding! So more than five hundred centuries after Christ's death, somebody finally got around to declaring this to be a false doctrine? And ever since, most Christians have bought into it.

 

[St0ne]

Universalism is not possible to the vast majority of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). The idea assumes that if given enough time everyone will choose God. It should be obvious to most of us that the most crystal clear evidence, logic, reason, etc. is not enough for some to still seek a relationship with God. They would deny Him even if He was right before their eyes.

~Victor

I think this is ignoring reality, everything changes, I am not the same person I was yesterday, to codemn someone for eterinity is saying they will never change and we know they will never change, the reality is that we know they will change. Given enough time everyone will find truth, unfortunately we don't get the time many of us need.

 

[sparc872]

There was a thread about this a while back that you could look into. When I was a Christian, this was practically the only thing that kept me that way for as long as I was.

I have a couple links for you to look at if you are interested. One is tentmaker.org, which seems to be pretty in depth about the topic.

This is a list of verses that basically show how universal salvation appears to be the only clearcut understanding of scripture: http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/DoYouBelieve.html

 

[sparc872]

Universalism is not possible to the vast majority of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). The idea assumes that if given enough time everyone will choose God. It should be obvious to most of us that the most crystal clear evidence, logic, reason, etc. is not enough for some to still seek a relationship with God. They would deny Him even if He was right before their eyes.

Victor, you mean to tell me that someone could deny the love of your God for all eternity? Never turning to him? That would take some pretty amazing will power on their part.

By the way, it should be obvious to most of us that the most crystal clear evidence, logic, reason, etc. is not enough for some to realize that God does not exist As a side note, I rest my fate in the hands of God, if he does exist, and not in the writings of men.

 

[Katzpur]

Victor, you mean to tell me that someone could deny the love of your God for all eternity? Never turning to him? That would take some pretty amazing will power on their part.

Sparc,

I think the reason most Christians who reject the idea of universal salvation believe that the instant a person dies, he stands before God to be judged and is either welcomed into Heaven or banished to Hell, and that once this life ends, his future is cast in concrete. Let's consider an athiest, like you. If you were to die tomorrow and were instantly transported to the pearly gates where you were made to face your Maker (whom you currently believe to be imaginary), you'd probably say, "Whoa! Hey, God! Let me re-think my position on your existence. Okay, I'm done rethinking. I believe!!! Please don't punish me for eternity!" Now to most Christians, it would be inconceivable for God to relent and simply disregard the fact that you spent your whole life denying His existence. Why should He let you into Heaven. I can understand their feelings, but I also think that, assuming you really did find yourself in God's presence, you'd be pretty stupid to not start back-pedaling as fast as you could.

Well, according to my belief, it wouldn't work that way. You'd have a good long time to think the matter over and you'd be crazy not to notice that, in spite of the fact that your body was lying six feet underground, you were still cognizant of what was going on around you. People were still trying to convince you that a man named Jesus Christ had paid the price for your sins. Everything was just the way those nutty Mormons had said it was going to be. Seriously, what would you do? Would you eventually stop being so stubborn and come around? I sure hope so. And if you did, I would be really happy for you -- happy that Jesus allowed you to get over whatever it was that prevented you from accepting Him during your lifetime.

 

[Elvendon]

Wow lots of replies!

Universalism is not possible to the vast majority of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). The idea assumes that if given enough time everyone will choose God. It should be obvious to most of us that the most crystal clear evidence, logic, reason, etc. is not enough for some to still seek a relationship with God. They would deny Him even if He was right before their eyes.

I can't say I agree with this. Lots of atheists (who, I think we can presume, are the group most likely to doubt God) I have talked to say that if they saw clear, undeniable evidence (although they often define this quite strictly) then they would believe. My thoughts that this is not the point of faith go down less well however

I think Origen was onto something. I don't know that I'd go along with every detail of what he believed, but I do believe that the vast, vast majority of mankind will, in fact, ultimately receive some degree of salvation. I believe there is a period of time after death when each of us will continue to exist as cognizant beings, but without our physical bodies. During this period of time, as we await the resurrection of our physical bodies, we will continue to grow spiritually and will have the capacity to grasp concepts that managed to elude us for the 80 or so years we lived on earth. Those who never heard of Jesus Christ will come to know of Him. They will not be in His presence, so they will have to accept Him on faith, relying on the testimonies of other believers, but just like anyone who accepted Christ during this life, they will have that opportunity before being called to stand before their Creator to be judged. Others, who knew of Him but rejected Him during their mortal lives, will again be exposed to His gospel and will likely, over what may be years and years, come to realize that He was, in fact, their Savior and that, through sincere repentance, they can also be forgiven for their sins. The longer they put off their repentence, the less time they will have to enjoy the peace and joy that comes to those who believe, but for them it will at least be better late than never.

I believe there will be a relative few who, although they may come to a full and complete understanding of who He was and what His sacrifice could have accomplished for them, consciously and willfully reject Him. They will want no part of His love or His mercy, and these will not be forced upon them. There won't be many of these, however. Who knows, perhaps even Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Ladin will eventually come around. They will continue to suffer in some way for the heinous atrocities they committed until they finally come to the realization that the price has already been paid, at which time they too can experience the grace and forgiveness offered them.

Nicely put. I'm not sure I agree with the spiritual afterlife - followed by resurrection (I tend to believe we are physically resurrected in heaven (what I believe is a real physical place)) but otherwise, I completely agree. It's rather similar to C.S. Lewis' statement that the gates of hell are locked only from the inside

No kidding! So more than five hundred centuries after Christ's death, somebody finally got around to declaring this to be a false doctrine? And ever since, most Christians have bought into it.

Too true. I wonder if there is a ritual you can do to de-anathema a teaching... I'd like to believe that eternal punishment with no hope of redemption fits in with a loving God, but I just can't. I wouldn't condemn someone to hell forever for a finite sin, so why would God, who is better than me, do such a thing?

I agree with what you said about how universalism would work - it wouldn't be cheap but it would be affordable for everyone.

There was a thread about this a while back that you could look into. When I was a Christian, this was practically the only thing that kept me that way for as long as I was.

I have a couple links for you to look at if you are interested. One is tentmaker.org, which seems to be pretty in depth about the topic.

This is a list of verses that basically show how universal salvation appears to be the only clearcut understanding of scripture:

Thanks, I'll look at those forthwith. frimmin.com is also good if you don't have much time to go trawling through lots of textual analysis

 

[James the Persian]

Universalism is not possible to the vast majority of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). The idea assumes that if given enough time everyone will choose God. It should be obvious to most of us that the most crystal clear evidence, logic, reason, etc. is not enough for some to still seek a relationship with God. They would deny Him even if He was right before their eyes.

~Victor

I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Opposition to apokatastasis is generally based on the idea that it violates free will, which God will not do. Origen's ideas do indeed seem to do this and so they are generally considered incompatible with Christianity. Others, however, did not take so strong a view and hence do not seem to cause the same problems Origen does. St. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, merely believed that everyone, once confronted with the Truth, would wish to reconcile with God and that as God wills that all be saved, such reconcilliation would be accepted. In effect, then, St. Gregory of Nyssa's view is more of a strongly held hope, undoubtedly motivated by love for mankind, that all would eventually find salvation. I would share his hope, but I agree that this should not, ever, be taught as doctrine. It seems like a perfectly compatible theologoumenon, however.

It's also worth noting that apokatastasis was never directly and specifically condemned (hence why St. Gregory of Nyssa's beliefs have not been condemned). Origenism was, but as Origen's teachings included also the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, it is perfectly possible to believe in or (as I do) hope for universal salvation without falling under the anathema leveled at Origenism. Now, I doubt that everyone will actually be saved because some people will stubbornly persist in their ways even if it causes them harm, so I guess you could say that I do not believe in apokatastasis, but I most certainly do hold the beliefs of St. Gregory of Nyssa to be completely Christian and, even if he (and by extension, I) has erred, at least he erred on the side of love, which surely is the best possible motivation for such an error.

James

 

[sojourner]

I am a firm believer in universal salvation. I believe that God has made it quite clear that God intends for every person to be in union with God. And I further think that God has made it quite clear that God gets what God wants.

I also firmly believe that God's love for all of us is so perfect, and God's Oneness is so encompassing, that, once faced with that love and Oneness, no one will desire to live apart from it.

 

[Elvendon]

I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Opposition to apokatastasis is generally based on the idea that it violates free will, which God will not do. Origen's ideas do indeed seem to do this and so they are generally considered incompatible with Christianity. Others, however, did not take so strong a view and hence do not seem to cause the same problems Origen does. St. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, merely believed that everyone, once confronted with the Truth, would wish to reconcile with God and that as God wills that all be saved, such reconcilliation would be accepted. In effect, then, St. Gregory of Nyssa's view is more of a strongly held hope, undoubtedly motivated by love for mankind, that all would eventually find salvation. I would share his hope, but I agree that this should not, ever, be taught as doctrine. It seems like a perfectly compatible theologoumenon, however.

It's also worth noting that apokatastasis was never directly and specifically condemned (hence why St. Gregory of Nyssa's beliefs have not been condemned). Origenism was, but as Origen's teachings included also the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, it is perfectly possible to believe in or (as I do) hope for universal salvation without falling under the anathema leveled at Origenism. Now, I doubt that everyone will actually be saved because some people will stubbornly persist in their ways even if it causes them harm, so I guess you could say that I do not believe in apokatastasis, but I most certainly do hold the beliefs of St. Gregory of Nyssa to be completely Christian and, even if he (and by extension, I) has erred, at least he erred on the side of love, which surely is the best possible motivation for such an error.

James

Thanks for clarifying that position. I am probably somewhere between you and Origen on this issue - I believe firmly it will happen, but I don't think God will force anyone to repent - given an infinate period of time, it is a statistical certainty that a changeable being will decide against prolonged suffering.

About reincarnation - I personally believe there is some kind of link between souls in different time periods. I don't believe in transmigration, but I do feel that there is a reason for people having visions of "past lives" and the feeling of "deja vu" when you go to places you have never been before. I believe that souls that are similar in spirit, in mind or in bloodline are influenced by one another, through God's spirit.

I haven't found anything that expressly condemns any such beliefs (and the Celtic tradition even emphasises it, drawing on pre-Christian ideas of the circular nation of time and the link between gods and saints), so what would your feelings on this be?

 

[Quiddity]

It's going to be difficult for me to respond without this turning into debate language.
Elvendon, do you care to have this thread moved to allow those from the outside to disagree and give their point of view?

~Victor

 

[Elvendon]

Certainly. A debate would be fun

 

[Ody]

Doesn't the Russian Orthodox church believe in eventual universal salvation?

 

[Katzpur]

Nicely put. I'm not sure I agree with the spiritual afterlife - followed by resurrection (I tend to believe we are physically resurrected in heaven (what I believe is a real physical place)) but otherwise, I completely agree.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Would you mind explaining your belief in just a bit more depth. Maybe you could address these questions as part of your answer:

1. When you die, what do you believe happens to your spirit/soul immediately after it leaves your body?

2. Do you believe in a physical resurrection, i.e. the concept that the physical body we had during mortality will somehow be perfected and be made immortal? If so, when do you believe this will take place?

3. When will you stand before God to be judged? Will it be right after you die or at the "Last Judgment" as described in the scriptures? Or will you be judged twice -- once as soon as you die and another time when Christ returns to begin His millennial reign?

 

[Katzpur]

It's also worth noting that apokatastasis was never directly and specifically condemned (hence why St. Gregory of Nyssa's beliefs have not been condemned). Origenism was, but as Origen's teachings included also the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, it is perfectly possible to believe in or (as I do) hope for universal salvation without falling under the anathema leveled at Origenism.

Sounds like Origen should have been LDS. I know a lot of LDS scholars think he was right about a number of doctrines that he was condemned for. Interesting, huh?

 

[lunamoth]

I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Opposition to apokatastasis is generally based on the idea that it violates free will, which God will not do. Origen's ideas do indeed seem to do this and so they are generally considered incompatible with Christianity. Others, however, did not take so strong a view and hence do not seem to cause the same problems Origen does. St. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, merely believed that everyone, once confronted with the Truth, would wish to reconcile with God and that as God wills that all be saved, such reconcilliation would be accepted. In effect, then, St. Gregory of Nyssa's view is more of a strongly held hope, undoubtedly motivated by love for mankind, that all would eventually find salvation. I would share his hope, but I agree that this should not, ever, be taught as doctrine. It seems like a perfectly compatible theologoumenon, however.

It's also worth noting that apokatastasis was never directly and specifically condemned (hence why St. Gregory of Nyssa's beliefs have not been condemned). Origenism was, but as Origen's teachings included also the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, it is perfectly possible to believe in or (as I do) hope for universal salvation without falling under the anathema leveled at Origenism. Now, I doubt that everyone will actually be saved because some people will stubbornly persist in their ways even if it causes them harm, so I guess you could say that I do not believe in apokatastasis, but I most certainly do hold the beliefs of St. Gregory of Nyssa to be completely Christian and, even if he (and by extension, I) has erred, at least he erred on the side of love, which surely is the best possible motivation for such an error.

James

Very well said. I'm with you on this one James.

luna

 

[James the Persian]

Doesn't the Russian Orthodox church believe in eventual universal salvation?

No. There are no doctrinal differences whatsoever between any of the local Orthodox churches, so what we believe as Romanian Orthodox Christians is exactly the same as what Russian Orthodox Christians believe. We just express our faith slightly differently with respect to certain non-essential traditions. It is acceptable for an Orthodox Christian of any local church to hope for apokatastasis and hold to this hope as a theologoumenon. It is absolutely unacceptable, and for good reason, for any Orthodox Christian to teach it as doctrine.

James