Nice article, Ben! This is an excellent depiction of the case for universalism, which is often misunderstood. You clearly addressed all the main questions, making proper distinctions and clarifications, and marshaling the Patristic authors in defense--though I would add that, in addition to Saints Maximus and Gregory Nazianzen, people often cite Saint Jerome as a universalist. I think the case for Nyssa is much weightier than any of those others, though.
I disagree with a good bit of what you've presented (obviously, since I am not a universalist of any persuasion) but the view you've outlined--what you might call the Origenist view--is something I would love to be wrong about!
I'd love to engage the universalist debate, but it's low on the list at the moment.
Question: is universalism a line in the sand for you, in the sense that you'd abandon Christian belief if you became convinced the Church teaching was incompatible with it?
Thanks Wesley! And good question. I suppose I'd still be a Christian even if I were convinced universalism were false, though for me the runner-up view would be annihilationism. I'd probably still be Christian, as well, even if I thought it entailed internalism. However, I think I'd hold to a very attenuated version of internalism, such as one sees for ex in the speculations of Jacques Maritain on the damned eventually achieving natural beatitude.
I'm curious what your objections to universalism are, but I know you had planned on writing a post on the subject so perhaps I'll have to wait until then to hear them elaborated!
I'll have to look at Martain's view. Let me know where he expounds it. Also, the post I have planned is on the doctrine of hell, but I suppose I could pivot a little to include universalism. I have no idea when I'll get around to it, though!
Michael Stefan's comment about Origen turned out to be dishonest. I looked it up in The Spiritual Meadow. It does indeed feature a story where someone claimed to see a bunch of heretics in a disagreeable place where there was fire, and listed Origen among them. However, his universalism was not given as the reason. No reason was given. Origen taught a lot of things.
Of course, there's no guarantee Origen was ever in such a place. This was after Justinian, and Origen's name could have been interpolated into a list of heretics at some point.
Not only that, but the story actually fits universalism better than infernalism, since the punishment for heresy is referred to as "chastisement", not damnation.
Good points. It's also worth noting that a random anecdote in a spiritual text ought not be treated as authoritative, and even if it were, great universalist saints like Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac of Nineveh aren't burning in hades in the anecdote (saints who are apparently 'fools' according to Michael).
Saints Gregory Of Nyssa and Isaac Of Syria either repented of Universalism or never believed in it in the first place, otherwise Ecumenical Councils would have anathematized them.
If you want to read a bit more about this, the 7th century book "Spiritual Meadow" by Saint John Moschos, which is about monastery life, has a section about Origen in it where his fate is divinely revealed.
Good summary. It's so important that we not be asked to worship an unthinkably brutal God - yet that is precisely what most Christians feel compelled to do.
I believe that God must end evil, or else he is not God. A Hell that is endless and inescapable means the preservation of evil for eternity.
Agreed! I love how St. Gregory of Nyssa puts this point about the necessary finitude of evil in "On the Making of Man":
"Wickedness, however, is not so strong as to prevail over the power of good; nor is the folly of our nature more powerful and more abiding than the wisdom of God: for it is impossible that that which is always mutable and variable should be more firm and more abiding than that which always remains the same and is firmly fixed in goodness: but it is absolutely certain that the Divine counsel possesses immutability, while the changeableness of our nature does not remain settled even in evil. Now that which is always in motion, if its progress be to good, will never cease moving onwards to what lies before it, by reason of the infinity of the course to be traversed:—for it will not find any limit of its object such that when it has apprehended it, it will at last cease its motion: but if its bias be in the opposite direction, when it has finished the course of wickedness and reached the extreme limit of evil, then that which is ever moving, finding no halting point for its impulse natural to itself when it has run through the lengths that can be run in wickedness, of necessity turns its motion towards good: for as evil does not extend to infinity, but is comprehended by necessary limits, it would appear that good once more follows in succession upon the limit of evil; and thus, as we have said, the ever-moving character of our nature comes to run its course at the last once more back towards good, being taught the lesson of prudence by the memory of its former misfortunes, to the end that it may never again be in like case."
So you think that God is going to manually change the hearts of those who don't want to be with Him, so that they now do want this? Sounds like mere wishful thinking to me.
Nice article, Ben! This is an excellent depiction of the case for universalism, which is often misunderstood. You clearly addressed all the main questions, making proper distinctions and clarifications, and marshaling the Patristic authors in defense--though I would add that, in addition to Saints Maximus and Gregory Nazianzen, people often cite Saint Jerome as a universalist. I think the case for Nyssa is much weightier than any of those others, though.
I disagree with a good bit of what you've presented (obviously, since I am not a universalist of any persuasion) but the view you've outlined--what you might call the Origenist view--is something I would love to be wrong about!
I'd love to engage the universalist debate, but it's low on the list at the moment.
Question: is universalism a line in the sand for you, in the sense that you'd abandon Christian belief if you became convinced the Church teaching was incompatible with it?
Thanks Wesley! And good question. I suppose I'd still be a Christian even if I were convinced universalism were false, though for me the runner-up view would be annihilationism. I'd probably still be Christian, as well, even if I thought it entailed internalism. However, I think I'd hold to a very attenuated version of internalism, such as one sees for ex in the speculations of Jacques Maritain on the damned eventually achieving natural beatitude.
I'm curious what your objections to universalism are, but I know you had planned on writing a post on the subject so perhaps I'll have to wait until then to hear them elaborated!
Infernalism* Sorry, autocorrect haha
I'll have to look at Martain's view. Let me know where he expounds it. Also, the post I have planned is on the doctrine of hell, but I suppose I could pivot a little to include universalism. I have no idea when I'll get around to it, though!
Origen was sentenced to hades for teaching universal salvation. Universal Salvation is what a fool believes.
Thanks for your feedback - God bless!
Michael Stefan's comment about Origen turned out to be dishonest. I looked it up in The Spiritual Meadow. It does indeed feature a story where someone claimed to see a bunch of heretics in a disagreeable place where there was fire, and listed Origen among them. However, his universalism was not given as the reason. No reason was given. Origen taught a lot of things.
Of course, there's no guarantee Origen was ever in such a place. This was after Justinian, and Origen's name could have been interpolated into a list of heretics at some point.
Not only that, but the story actually fits universalism better than infernalism, since the punishment for heresy is referred to as "chastisement", not damnation.
Good points. It's also worth noting that a random anecdote in a spiritual text ought not be treated as authoritative, and even if it were, great universalist saints like Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac of Nineveh aren't burning in hades in the anecdote (saints who are apparently 'fools' according to Michael).
True. Good points.
Yeah, it was just a story someone told someone else and it got written down. Who knows at this point.
Saints Gregory Of Nyssa and Isaac Of Syria either repented of Universalism or never believed in it in the first place, otherwise Ecumenical Councils would have anathematized them.
You give yourself away, Alana. "I believe God has to end evil", so any texts you read will be coloured by what you personally desire to be true.
If you want to read a bit more about this, the 7th century book "Spiritual Meadow" by Saint John Moschos, which is about monastery life, has a section about Origen in it where his fate is divinely revealed.
Good summary. It's so important that we not be asked to worship an unthinkably brutal God - yet that is precisely what most Christians feel compelled to do.
I believe that God must end evil, or else he is not God. A Hell that is endless and inescapable means the preservation of evil for eternity.
Agreed! I love how St. Gregory of Nyssa puts this point about the necessary finitude of evil in "On the Making of Man":
"Wickedness, however, is not so strong as to prevail over the power of good; nor is the folly of our nature more powerful and more abiding than the wisdom of God: for it is impossible that that which is always mutable and variable should be more firm and more abiding than that which always remains the same and is firmly fixed in goodness: but it is absolutely certain that the Divine counsel possesses immutability, while the changeableness of our nature does not remain settled even in evil. Now that which is always in motion, if its progress be to good, will never cease moving onwards to what lies before it, by reason of the infinity of the course to be traversed:—for it will not find any limit of its object such that when it has apprehended it, it will at last cease its motion: but if its bias be in the opposite direction, when it has finished the course of wickedness and reached the extreme limit of evil, then that which is ever moving, finding no halting point for its impulse natural to itself when it has run through the lengths that can be run in wickedness, of necessity turns its motion towards good: for as evil does not extend to infinity, but is comprehended by necessary limits, it would appear that good once more follows in succession upon the limit of evil; and thus, as we have said, the ever-moving character of our nature comes to run its course at the last once more back towards good, being taught the lesson of prudence by the memory of its former misfortunes, to the end that it may never again be in like case."
What if the people who are in hell are there precisely because they prefer to be without God, and God is just honouring their preferences?
"The king's heart is in the hands of the Lord. As the river of water, he turns it wherever he wishes." Proverbs 21:1
So you think that God is going to manually change the hearts of those who don't want to be with Him, so that they now do want this? Sounds like mere wishful thinking to me.