-- by the hand of iconographer George Makary (https://copticicon.com/icons)
In the ongoing, too often overheated, discussion of Christian universalism, here are some notes that might be helpful, especially in avoiding unnecessary runs down the garden path.
- Universalism does not discount the possibility of hell -- just its co-eternity with God. Any such experience is not retributive, but purgative, therapeutic & educational.
Gregory of Nyssa (et al) calls this a process of "purification," in which sin and death are consumed, making the "sinner no longer a sinner." This interval is the aeon after the present time and before the end, when there will be no more aeons but eternity. - Hell, or purgation, is not inflicted, but arises from the attempt of the self to oppose God's Love -- hence, it is the self revoking its own essence, which is to desire God's Love.
- Universalism is not opposed to human freedom, as is often suggested. Rather, human freedom is preserved and protected by the eternal persuasion of divine love, as proclaimed and embodied by Christ.
- To say that Jesus shall eventually surmount all & every refusal -- even the devil's -- is hardly an abrogation of freedom, but rather a vindication of Love & the "freeing" of freedom in theosis.
- There is a difference between "aeon" (indefinite time, an age) and "eternity" (timelessness). The NT uses the former with regard to purgation, & reserves the latter only for God.
- The interval of purgation may be long indeed. In fact, the "eternity" to which anti-universalists refer is probably this long interval, as they cannot conceive of eternity proper.
- The notion that God would actively inflict retribution upon His creature, or that God would allow endless perdition (or annihilation), cannot be supported by apophatic or divine absolute-ness.
- The difficulty of God's nature as love being also a despot that wages eternal wrath is more than the clay questioning the potter. That such conflation is utterly incoherent is a mark of the image of God that will not countenance such absurdity. "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts" is a statement of infinite transcendence, not discontinuity. That the thought of eternal punishment is (or should be) offensive is a sign that humanity has received God's revelation of His nature.
- It is legitimate, even necessary, to interpret Scripture and Tradition under the rubric of moral coherence. Doing so is precisely the work of "the Spirit leading into all truth," a continuation of Jesus' hermeneutical instruction on the road to Emmaus.
- Hermeneutics cannot avoid being essentially theological. Thus, one must interrogate the motives for defending the notion of eternal hell & divine retribution. What does such infernalism enable? What psychological & sociological structures are founded upon it?
- It is likely that the old notion that eternal hell was necessary for evangelism & discipline was never valid. It is the knowledge of the Father through the Son glorified by the Spirit that leads to repentance & theosis. Alone. Nothing less.
- It is true that since Constantine and Augustine, the majority of Christian leaders & writers seemed to think of Hell as unending torment, with no hope of change. But it is at least probable that before these two figures, the majority of Christians were universalists.
- Universalism as above has not been condemned as heretical by Eastern Orthodoxy, despite the common assumption that the 5th Ecumenical Council had done so (which it did not), & despite some local anathemas saying so. Anathemas are not dogma & are often flawed.
- Universalism produces a highly Christological eschatology. Christ reigns through the kenotic Spirit, exorcising the demonic, destroying sin and death, until everything is in voluntary and joyous submission.
- This universal submission (with no remainder) of Philippians 2.9-11 is a free, loving, and saving submission. It is the perfecting of the person, vs the annihilation of person in despotic oppression.
- The reign of Christ, in the actualization of "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth" is the "exorcistic" campaign of the Body of Christ against the antichrist structure. The demonic is constantly being evicted from the material realm. Permanently.
- "Until I make Your enemies Your footstool." When sin and death are finally destroyed, when all "sinners are made no longer sinners," as Basil the Great said, then "God will be all in all."
- It is inconceivable then that any should remain "sinner," after "Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20.14). This verse is the goal of Christ's reign, the destruction of sin and death.
- The lake of fire is the very fire St Paul describes in 1 Cor 3.15 -- the fire that burns up sin and death, but "he will not suffer loss, but saved as through fire." This is refinement, this is therapeutic. The sinner is made "not a sinner."
- To suggest any other purpose for fire is to suggest another nature of God, and to diminish eschatology, and finally -- if Hell is made eternal, then the Lord is made to fail.
A few things I've learned, lately, about anti-universalism (which, like gnosticism, is more a mindset than a set doctrine):
- If one does a word cloud from this online community, then the largest terms will be "heresy," "legalist," "weak-minded," "liberal."
- Clearly, "legalist" is being confused with "casuist" or "sophist." It is unclear how universalism could be associated with Pharisaism, which seems to have needed the doctrine of eternal perdition for its own purposes.
- Justinian is crucial in anti-universalism, if not essential, as he seems to be its main proponent. He is platformed with the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
- The strategy for responding to substantial questions about the actual rejection of apokatastasis by the 5th Council (which is doubtful) is to make accusations about being overly technical, even "legalistic."
- Origen is made out as the symbol of universalism, and is quickly denatured as a straw man. Sadly, this is hardly unprecedented in Tradition.
- But then this straw man argument disregards the universalism of Gregory of Nyssa (who was never denounced, obviously) and Isaac the Syrian.
- Also, it seems that anathemas from all sorts of authoritative levels (even quite low ones) are given great weight in anti-universalism. Anathematization is hardly a reliable foundation for dogma, and such practice could destabilize the entire practice of Tradition.
- Anti-universalists quote lots of Scripture about hell, & blithely reject the aeon/aïdios distinction. But universalist ref's like John 6.45, 12.32, 17.7; Acts 3.21; Romans 5.18; 1 Cor 15.21, 15.28; 1 Tim 2.4; 2 Peter 3.9 are given short shrift, or torturous re-interpretive contortions.
- And Rev 20.14? This is a clear statement that death & hell itself (which are not creations) will be annihilated from existence. Anti-universalists struggle to interpret this robustly.
- It seems that there is an avoidance, in anti-universalism, of dealing robustly with the difficulty of hell persisting eternally. This is evil being co-eval with God -- and is that okay in one's theology?
- I hope that the anti-universalist Fathers would not countenance the co-evality of hell with God. I wish that would be so with contemporary writers. I think most anti-universalists really mean an aeonic, indefinite interval of hell, rather than eternity.
- But there are those, sadly, who embrace the notion that the pain of the damned is part of the blessedness of heaven. This is execrable, and that notion remains a cancer within the history of doctrine.
- God doesn't need anything, & the God Who is Love does not need an anthropomorphized "satisfaction" of His wrath being excited or His honor being impugned. But some anti-universalists suggest that hell "must" persist, because "justice must be satisfied."
- The simplicity and apatheia of God will not suffer any satisfaction theory. Mercy always trumps justice, as Isaac the Syrian insists. And if God does not "need" hell, then neither does any cleric or theologian.
- And the poor & the meek, who have the Kingdom of Heaven & shall inherit the earth? They don't need hell after death because they probably have enough of it before death. But maybe those who are not poor & meek need hell -- or rather, the doctrine of it.
- Anti-universalists, especially those with an existentialist bent, insist that eternal hell is necessary to preserve human freedom. But this is a false opposition. The ability to reject God's love is hardly a freedom at all. There is no possibility of eternity within the confines of hell, as hell is only a negation -- it is NOT a creation. Human freedom is the person's growth toward the perfection of his or her human nature. A willing devolution is hardly freedom -- and the overcoming of that possibility is the preservation and perfection of human freedom, not its abrogation.
- There is no doubt that anti-universalists work hard to preserve the notion of eternal hell, despite that notion's absence in the Nicene Creed. It is not clear why there needs to be such commitment.
Thank you for this, Father. It's tremendously encouraging to read a priest writing about his universalist sympathies. I get pretty discouraged that my hope for the salvation of the world is so out of step with Church teaching, to the extent that I begin to suspect that I'm hopelessly evil for desiring something completely at odds with the Lord's design.
It's strange, I fear that universalism is too beautiful to be true; but I don't want to believe anything that could be any less beautiful.
Do you have any practical suggestions about how I can remain hopeful? Do you have any particular prayers in your prayer rule or specific devotions that water your hope?
Thanks in ICXC!
Posted by: Carlos Taliaferro | February 06, 2023 at 08:09 PM