@@hunterterrat9105 I suppose God saw it was sufficient and better to leave it as a matter of hope or theological opinion. Perhaps otherwise some would misunderstand and abuse the dogma and use it as an excuse to live according to their will rather than God's.
"Let us struggle with all our powers to gain Paradise. The gate is very narrow, and don’t listen to those who say that everyone will be saved. This is a trap of Satan so that we won’t struggle." --St. Paisios the Athonite
Very true. And yet, Christ said when He appeared to -St- -Silouan- another, anonymous monk described by St. Sophrony Sakharov, crying about those tormented in hell, "Why do you cry so? Don't you know I shall judge the world? I shall forgive everyone who but once in his life invoked God". Or as the Alexandria cobbler who was made an example for Anthony the Great put it, "All will be saved, only I shall remain fruitless". I mean, unimaginable mercy of God which we might hope for everyone should not make us careless about our own salvation; more than once I witnessed an idea opposite to the cobbler's, "only we, the few right-minded ones, shall be saved, and the rest shall perish".
That's ridiculous brother. The earliest church leaders understood that Jesus saved EVERYONE! The perverted Latin-based versions of the bible are what brought this false rendering of hell into existence! Do yourself a favor and get a copy of the Concordant Literal New Testament with keyword concordance. It's one the very best translations you can get your hands on. Just a tip, but stop limiting what Jesus has done for us! How can Jesus be the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD (1John 4:14) if more than half of the God's creation will be lost forever?! And how will God end up being ALL IN ALL?! (1 Corinthians 15:28) Some food for thought, maybe?! I'm sure I could toss verse after verse at you, but for you to stubbornly put your hand up in my direction. Just saying, maybe challenge yourself a bit more and do what Jesus said about seeking out the truth for yourself, whichever verse that is. Oh yeah, ALWAYS FORGIVE ENDLESSLY (Mathew 18:21-22) ! Best!
I think St Theophan said something similar, that he hopes and prays that all be saved. For love can't stand the notion of someone suffering eternally Edit: Actually, It was Saint Silouan
The issue to me is that people aren't in hell because of a present rejection of God, but because of a past one. There's the day of judgement, and if you don't accept God before that deadline then you are condemned for eternity. That's the common understanding of it. And if that's the case then you can't say that they are in hell because of a genuine and absolutely unchanging rejection of God, but rather because of the contingent and arbitrary state of growth they were in when it was decided that there was no need to put effort into helping them. Which is a problem, because everyone would be in hell if the day of judgement came the day they were at their worst. Or alternatively, if for some reason there is really no hope that they would change, it means that some people are evil by nature, because apparently knowledge, experiences and relationships wouldn't change them even if God tried, which is a problematic view of creation.
Dr. Hart utilizes a similar idea/philosophy. But, it's kinda just that, a rational/philosophical argument. On the other hand, we acknowledge that in fact, our choices do have cosmic and eternal consequences. Adam and Eve in the garden show this. According to Church teaching, Salvation is not limited to "God Loves us", but includes that reality that man sinned and only God forgives and saves man from his sin. Hence, we sing at Pascha, Christ is Risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life. Whether we think something is rational or not does not deter whether we should believe it to not. Fro instance, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, etc.
@@matuskaandme5408 I disagree with your last statement, because if you say that God doesn't act according to reason, nor according to morality as far as we can understand it, it would imply that humans are not made in the image of God, but rather have completely different natures, and He doesn't act for our good at all because His understanding of 'good' is alien to actual human experience. Also, it seems to me contradictory to talk of "the eternal consequences of our actions" at the same time that you talk about the forgiving power of Jesus, because if any sin can be redeemed by Jesus then there doesn't have to be any "eternal" consequence for anything. Adam and Eve could very well be in heaven for all we know.
@@GalaxiaTokyo I may be misreading you - but you seem to imply what I personally find compelling: God has the final Word - and with Him all things are possible! (The idea that death somehow seals our eternal fate is altogether absent from Scripture - Does God cease to love those who die? Do we cease to have a will? I think not.) He is "NOT willing for any to perish, but [obversely, His will is] for all to come to repentance" We pray, "They will be done!" He sent for the Word (Logos) not to condemn the world but to save it - *_and His Word (above all, Jesus Christ) cannot fail_* "so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11 Blessing to you! -wayne
I’m sorry that my understanding is different than yours. I’m only able to articulate what I believe and my experiences in the Orthodox Church. From my understanding from, God transcends normal human categories. While words can help get us some ideas, God is not bound by my explanations or anyone’s explanations. Divine Revelation is comprised of our encounter with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. As an Orthodox Christian, I strive to stay within the boundaries of what the Church teaches is Divine Revelation. I used to be interested in speculative theology, but I’m only interested in the lived experience of Christ within the Church now.
Wow. I became Orthodox in part because of the way they seemed to thread the needle between the inexhaustible love of God and the inviolable nature of the gift of man's freedom [In other words, hopeful universalism]. Comment threads like this one make me sad. People who have not closely read the councils seem to be taking the words of a few baptist-to-catholic-to-Orthodox youtube commentators, with their very idiosyncratic takes on the councils and church history, who interpret all nuanced dissent from their positions on everything as either capitulating to perennialism or ecumenism or freemasonry, as the inviolable word of the church fathers, distilled down through the ages to their minds without fault or blemish. I hope the church will do its work, and that twenty years from now, the lingering remnants of baptist vitriol and catholic scholastic elevation of the intellect over the spirit will be smoothed away. Hopefully, those edges that go hand-in-hand with the aforementioned rigid, uncharitable, and reactionary dialectical thinking will give way to the holy spirit's gifts of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, against which there is no law. Lord have mercy on us all.
It's a struggle for the ages. Lord have mercy! You point out some difficulties that are real in American Orthodoxy. As Greg Pavlik mentioned here, we all ought to be wary of internet stuff and I agree. It often does great harm. For my part, I try to bring some light to this darkened Internet place. If we really want to be Orthodox, you are going to be attending services at an Orthodox Church and be part of an Orthodox community. This means having a community of faithful we see regularly and who hold us accountable and encourage us in the Christian life. Let's all understand, we're never going to get that from the Internet. Being faithful in our local Orthodox community---that's how Orthodoxy in America will grow and "mature" through those things you rightfully pointed out.
Your comment is absolutely invaluable as many of my own thoughts and observations echo your own! Thank you for taking the time to share your heartfelt and beautiful thoughts. God bless you and your family.
That's a lot of assumptions there, friend. Councils which are received by the whole Church are infallible - that isn't "Dyerism" as you're implying, it is Orthodox dogma and always has been. Those of you questioning the Councils are outside of the mainstream of Orthodoxy. You are the radical fringe, not the people you are attacking. You can't have the fruits of the Holy Spirit without abiding in the motherly embrace of the Church. That includes accepting her teachings. Nice try playing humble and gentle, but there's nothing humble or gentle about rejecting the Church's teachings.
The idea that everyone is saved without repentance and humility and struggle is satanic. What’s the point of picking up your cross every day if you’re already saved? Thats so far off from the teachings of Christ, the saints, and Holy Elders.
I would kindly highlight that most expressions of Universal Salvation do not teach that "everyone is saved without repentence and humility". It simply teaches that since God's love never fails, the opportunity to repent and have humility goes beyond this life. The process of theosis is, therefore, an inevitable process that will happen. So, "the point of picking up your cross everyday" is that one must go through the process of theosis, of the destruction of the old self to use the expression, and it is better to start this process now so you may participate in the life of God more deeply sooner, that one hurts more people and has less to regret when we come to "the Day". I'd ask you to consider 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. Universalists would highlight "the day" is when we come to be fully in God's presence and either, because one has taken up their cross daily, this will be a delightful thing, or, because one has not undertaken this, the fire of will act as a purifier. The revelation that the fire gives will be very painful, but, it's fruit will ultimately be good, which is why it is said they will "suffer loss but yet will be saved-even though only as one escaping through the flames". Please understand that universal salvation is based off of so much more than this vere but I just thought it would be best to address your legitimate concerns and inform you that your concerns do not apply to most expressions of universalism.
@@matthewsimpson6104 I just haven’t seen any fathers of the church saying this or any saints. As far as I can tell Satan will go to hell and I don’t see him coming out
This is the conclusion I have reached as well. It's like how we can come to trust God for our own salvation, but we dare not teach "assurance of salvation" as a doctrine.
This is something I struggle with and people I am close to do as well. It makes me wonder about the true nature of love. We are called to love each other as ourselves. Sacrificial love that is deep and connecting. How can we then every be satisfied in heaven if all of creation is not redeemed. How can heaven be perfect if we look upon our brothers and sisters who are suffering eternally. Will Christ's victory over death and sin not be ultimate? If you think about it to say that salvation will not be universal will be to say that satan wins in some way. That despite large portions of humanity returning to their true purpose with God, some will eternally be apart form Him. I am not a theologian and I am not very smart, but the thought of hell makes me very sad, as I strive in my life to have deep sympathy and love for all of humanity.
@@sxfnlc If God is perfectly just, his judgements on his own creatures must also be perfectly just. Isn't a part of faith the trusting that he is just and that when he judges us, we will be judged impartially and justly?
@@sxfnlc I will let God judge us on our theology in accordance with his own words. Scripture says there are two groups - sheep and goats. I bet you have read those verses? So not everyone is a sheep according to Christ.
Lisa Couture @UCplGyT3Ic8B9tw2GtHMbdDw Since the reply address is all garbled I'm not sure if you're addressing me. I assume you are. Proper doctrine isn't a lack of love. It's an essential part of the faith... Read your Bible, don't trust my words. Trust in God's words! He is true and faithful
@UCplGyT3Ic8B9tw2GtHMbdDw Lisa Couture BTW because I knew my second reply would be offensive to you I deleted it. you seem offended so it's probably best for us to stop writing each other. May God bless you in Christ!
@@prayunceasingly2029 My hope, and, I think, the hope of all of us, is that we will *not* be judged justly and impartially, because, if we are, then who could possibly be saved? What argument do I have before God? What defense do I have? "If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with you!"
This video is going to get some infernalists frothing at the mouth. The extreme anger and rage some people have at the idea that some people believe that God will actually accomplish his will is I suspect from a demonic source. It makes me wonder if they would even be in church at all if they didn't have fear motivating them.
Nope. I'll stand with Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Macrina, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. Issac of Nineveh, Dionysius the Areopagite, and many others. If the possibility of eternal hellfire and damnation was such an uncontested threat, why was there no mention of it in the earliest Greek creedal statements?
There’s no mention of it because no major heretic taught it. As for your list, St Maximos doesn’t teach it, neither does St Dionysios, Clement only in questionable fragments, and Theodore is hardly a Church Father. St Maximos has the most interesting idea: at the apokatastasis all will be transformed to their original natures - hence God will be shown not to have been the author of any evil - but although all will be united to God, this will vary depending on the ‘inner disposition’ of each. God is only love, but His love can be experienced as either pleasure or torment, depending.
The Nicene Creed says Christ will come to judge the living and the dead. There is little explicit teaching against it early until it becomes somewhat more widely held. As for your list, St Maximos doesn’t teach it, neither does St Dionysios; Clement only in questionable fragments, and Theodore is hardly a Church Father. I don’t know what passage you have in mind for St Irenaeus. And many others? -I’m afraid not. It’s a short list, it’s hardly a Patristic consensus. St Maximo’s’ clarification on the apokatastasis is actually enlightening. All natures will be restored to their pristine state, and all will be united to God, Who is only love. But depending on the ‘inner disposition,’ for some this union with God’s love will be unutterable pleasure, for others, torment.
The contrary positions are a bit less unambiguous: there are certainly scholars who believe Maximus believed in (ultimate) universal salvation; more clearly, the Scriptural language around torment "in the Age" is certainly not so unambiguous. In any case, its very good to see how Orthodox hierarchs approach these mysteries with caution, reverence and respect for the Tradition.
He's being disingenuous, trying to create a space for heresy to be normalized. He essentially said in this video "you can believe in universalism if you want to." No, you can't. Universalism is a condemned heresy that was settled centuries ago, not some modern controversy that is still being worked out. Met. Kallistos Ware does the same thing under the guise of "dialogue." That is the modernist way of getting the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak.
@@whitemakesright2177 The idea that universalism was condemned by some council is a myth. The parts of Origen's thought that were condemned were not universalism as such.
@@GalaxiaTokyo Certainly some have taken this more recent view. It seems to come from the mistaken view and understanding of Ecumenical councils and their acts. Craig over at the website orthodox christian theology tackled this topic recently. He did a good job of explaining things. Long story short, like Archbishop Alexander said, Origen and universal salvation indeed was condemned by Church council.
@@gregpavlik6474 Using "fundamentalist" as a pejorative makes you an unserious person. As does making unwarranted assumptions about someone based on their username. So-called "fundamentalists" are those who actually believe what the Church teaches.
As for Abp Golitzin’s ‘personal hope’ rather than ‘dogma,’ it really does seem to make something of a difference. But I am not prepared to say whether one should be openly teaching this or not.
Archbishop Alexander is MY bishop, and he has done no such thing. To a young priest attached to our altar his Eminence stated unequivocally that Universal Apokatastasis of all human beings is a heresy. Love binds us to pray for all men, and even to hope that somehow all may say yes to God, but we have no grounds to declare such or teach that all human beings will eventually choose Christ over self.. As for the Talmud: one can learn from it: things that enlighten the mind...and things that poison the soul. Only the accepted dogma of the Orthodox Church may be universally embraced.
@@Chittwood2 How do you explain the fact that the Archbishop has said publicly that the Fifth Ecumenical Council was wrong to condemn Origen, and that Origen is a saint? See my comment further up for the proof the he said this.
I'd say that universal salvation is good for doctrine. Very good really. However it must be stressed, that is before our technical views about the eschaton and throughout the means of our views on Christ's incarnation, life, sacrifice, resurrection, ascension and atonement as well as all matters around soteriology just how important our state of inspiration is while on the earth. For we cannot consciously forsake our progressive sanctification for momentarily going to transgress the divine presence of the Holy One. These actions are the definition of finding inspiration of antichrist uncleanness in ourselves, as it were, do not let Satan indwell you. To the best of one's abilities be conscious and anyways strive to be better. This is exactly what I believe is the proper exegesis of 1 John chapter 2. So how can we recognize our mission and our commission and our omission throughout life to live it to our utmost holiness? It is by spiritually profiting as much as we've been given to, and that's only in seeking out the Holy and through His grace saving every moment of our lives, that is to remain always nearer to His gracious and righteous will. - Your Quality Apologist
Those who think hell must be eternal to be taken seriously may not grasp the horror of separation from God, even temporarily. Mental agony, despair, and isolation are unbearable for anyone who has experienced them. Repentance should stem from the realization of one’s brokenness and the desire for restoration, not merely fear of punishment. The idea of needing eternity to motivate repentance might come from people who haven’t grappled with the kind of pain that transforms a person over time. True repentance arises from encountering God’s love and realizing the harm one has done to oneself and others-not from terror. Fear may provoke superficial change, but love inspires true transformation. The free will argument is a dubble edge sword also since you only have it till you die and even then only christians „have it”. What free will was there for a person who was born in another religion or hell even in the wrong denomination. Do i think universalim is true ....i don't know I hope it is.
Universal salvation is a very dangerous understanding on this side of the grave. The others side is already understood and changeless. Our purpose on this is side is to keep the commandments, the threats, the doctrines and the promises paramount! If we can't do it while we are alive we got no chance in hell of doing it on the otherside. There is no guarantee. Christianity is not a heavenly insurance program where Jesus pays all the premiums. We are to follow him and not ride in on him
sounds like works. I know I couldn't get to heaven without Jesus, no doubt in my mind. I mean, he DID pay for my sins. Isn't it just a matter of accepting that reality?
Why anyone would be terribly worried that those who caused millions to suffer - e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Mao - might not be saved is beyond me. And it makes zero sense theologically. Rather, st Isaac’s simple assertion that most (not all) will be saved, for this is consistent with a Benevolent Creator Who does not create conditions for salvation too difficult for most people - is theologically a more fruitful line of inquiry.
“The great mystery of the divine incarnation teaches these things and the like. For through these things mingling with humanity-through being born with all of the properties of [our] nature, both birth and nurture, and growth, and going out as far as the experience of death-he has accomplished all that has been said before, both freeing man from vice and healing the inventor of vice himself. For the healing of a disease is the purification of the sickness, even if it is painful.” -St. Gregory of Nyssa, "Catechetical Discourses" If the "Pillar of Orthodoxy" and "Father of the Fathers" could teach universal salvation-even of the devil himself!-as doctrine, why can't we?
Not to mention that the Council of Ephesus called St. Gregory Nyssen the "great bulwark against heresy" If his writings are the bulwark, according to the infallible council, then his view of apokatastasis is minimally acceptable and maximally may deserve to be dogmatic
The human “no” to God is not a product of virtue, but a product of ego, and cannot outlast the Infinite. This “no” does not stem from one’s capacity to live out from that which is authentic to their God-given design, but stems from a lack of integration into what it truly is to be human. From the very beginning, man had yet to be perfected his capacity to will God. Never by his own ability, but by grace through divine persuasion alone.
A question in similar stream. How can one be rational and yet enslaved to systems that they think serve them but really are simply bondage? The breaker of chains ⛓️ wouldn't allow one by His revelatory powers be so irrational that they cannot actually see what true freedom is. Therefore what people often call "free will" or libertarianism is actually about the *acts* and manifestation of bondage and being not free. And therein all delusions from actual freedom that such evil has always occluded from. So for me I believe in overcoming grace as we're in a synergistic state of awareness, which is a gift that not all are bestowed enough to evolve out in a personal experience (while in the earth). And eventually in the increasing degrees of the absolute revelation of all that is promised to us by the scriptures, there is that monergistic state of the Holy One and that is an irresistible grace for all former senses are collapsed to the pure essential reality of His divinity. That is a very different matter indeed, although the latter inspires the former obviously. - YQA
I look at the Lord's many warnings including " few be there who find it", speaking of the "narrow way". Though I would hope all would come to Christ and so to eternal salvation. In the end God has it settled, and He is beyond my understanding. I choose Him, will follow Him (with His help and mercy) no matter what, and desire and pray that others would too. I pray for mercy for loved ones I am not so sure about where they are eternally. I would think the whole point of controlling the passions and sin as well as Theosis is crucial to this life and the next.
The Nicene Creed reads that Christ will come to judge the living and the dead. One doesn’t find the issue in the earliest creeds likely because no one was widely teaching Universalism (until Origen). Scholars mistakenly put St Maximos, St Dionysios and some others in the Universalist camp , there really are not many Patristic proponents of the idea. St Maximos actually has the most edifying teaching on the apokatastasis. The. All creation will be restored to its ‘natural’ state, and, since God is Love, all will be united to God. However, this will be received , depending on one’s ’inner disposition,’ as either unutterable pleasure or torment (if one has not developed some receptivity to union with God).
Say the first Adam existed ..or say it represents humanity Just one single choice was given : I beleive ghr first Adam literally existed .. So 'part of the majestic image of God for...space with .. infinite divinity ' to paraphrase the bishop ..he had .. So highly developed mind (naming all flora and fauna etc ) ...this first Adam could not make a simple straight choice : do not eat of this fruit 🍓 Now what choices we have !! If a single choice was missed and messed up so bad ..how can one expect after 100s of generations of evil sufferings sin ..confusion When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd...Matthew 9 36 .. What can one choose ? How can one choose ? The capacity of rational creatures have become helpless and harrased . .. Heck we even killed God in flesh !!??? Only God can and will completely save .. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do... Romans 7 No sir .. I can't make .. incapable of making simple choices ..how can I make bigger ones ? So what is the solution ? I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him Hosea 14 But has not the word being preached ? But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” Romans 10 But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people Romans 10 No choices .. I don't even understand ....how can the supremely good ( God ) be so continuously rejected .. 40 generations till Micah ..??!! So what is the solution ? Only God For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 11 The exuberant .. ejaculation of praise and worship follows that discovery of the apostle Paul Oh, the depth of the riches(AY) of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God!(AZ) How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!(BA) 34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”[j](BB) 35 “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?”[k](BC) 36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.(BD) To him be the glory forever! Amen.
This is certainly a rational or philosophical perspective. As Archbishop Alexander explained, Orthodox have a different teaching that upholds man’s will. Orthodox don’t hold that man has no will and no choice. Dr. Hart does seem inclined to do away with mans will, at least as the Church teaches.
@@matuskaandme5408 That is a good point Matuska .. thanks 🙏 for pointing that out and taking thr time to reply. Among Christian philosophers like Prof Tom Talbott..Alvin Platinga..and more radically in William lane craig ( molinism ) and Roger Olson ( who is more a thelogian . arminian variety ) and in general i have seen human choice and free will is given a prominent place ..the last two emphasize liberarian free will .. This is a thorny problem ..for they can not be ..in my opinion ..any discussion on certain aspects of philosophy without free will....i have noticed it over and over ... But Prof Richard Beck attempts to see thr quandry Start of quote "As I've written about before, I think it's problematic to put so much theological weight on such a sketchy anthropological concept like "free will." I could ask Scot the same sort of question about free will that I asked of other theological advocates of free will:”" he continues “Why would you build any theological argument upon a philosophically contested, scientifically disputed, and perennially controversial anthropocentric abstraction?” end of quote More importantly when i read Romans 9-11..I see something startling ..even Apostle Paul does not answer the question directly but i feel even he indulges in ad-hominem attack.. here it is : One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" romans 9 : 19, DBH at times speaks of in deterministic manner at least in TASBS Thanks 🙏 for indulging me ..😊
A careful reading of St Maximus the Confessor shows that he was a universalist. "Hopeful" universalism is incoherent. To quote D. B. Hart: "anyone who hopes for the universal reconciliation of creatures with God must already believe that this would be the best possible ending to the Christian narrative; and such a person has then no excuse for imagining that God could bring any but the best possible ending to pass without thereby being in some sense a failed creator".
I don't care what you think of Hart; that is some very very good reasoning. I think a certain type of agnostism concering the afterlife isn't out of place. Well if it doesn't damage your faith that is.
Apart from the creation, the Abrahamic covenant, the Koreshic Oath, the Angel's gospel, the death entombment and resurrection of Christ and the consummation of prophecy revealed by Sts Paul and John, there is nothing on which to base a doctrine of universal salvation in scripture. Ok maybe just the old prophets and psalms, but no more, nothing to see here but the omega plan.
A sinner in heaven is as miserable aa a saint in hell. God offers salvation to all, his resurrection is proof of that. We have free will to accept or reject, those in hell continue to reject his salvation just as they did on earth because hell is where all passions are continually enflamed and consuming. I'd rather hear there is no universal salvation and be pleasantly surprised than to preach it and be caught up in heresy.
It is sad to see the word of God constrained by the teachings and indoctrinations of men. 1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Hart is wrong. If People can live like devils and later enjoy eternal life in God’s presence, then nothing is required of man. This destroys any need to preach the Gospel, call sinners to repent or faith in Christ, or the need for church or sacraments. All things will be resurrected. But not all things will enjoy the life to come.
Christian Universalists don't argue against the existence of hell. They argue against the idea of an absolutely eternal hell that lasts as long as heaven, aka, for all eternity. The book of revelation seems to say that hell comes to an end, and it doesn't specify what happens to those who are suffering in it.
It's a shame the archbishop didn't actually engage with argument made in That All Shall Be Saved. I mean, I understand why he didn't; no one has yet been able to refute it. I guess I was hoping for more than just one more appeal to authority. He didn't actually make much of a case against universal salvation at all.
You clearly don't understand how Orthodoxy works. The teaching of the Church (which is the teaching of Christ Himself) is the ultimate foundation of everything we believe. No "argument" will overcome that.
As you learn more about Orthodoxy, you will find there are dogmatic teachings. These are primarily about the Person of Christ and especially as they relate to deification. There are what we call theologumenon. There are aporias. There are things on which many Fathers are silent. I think many converts are looking for a tight system and a convenient set of answers to any question. That's not what we have.
@@whitemakesright2177 Archimandrite Sophrony remembered a conversation between [Silouan] and a certain hermit who declared with evident satisfaction, ‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’ Obviously upset, [Silouan] said, ‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there you looked down and saw someone burning in hell-fire - would you feel happy?’ ‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit. [Silouan] answered him in a sorrowful countenance: ‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’
@@thadcox8550 The problem is not in the hermit's statement itself, but in his evident satisfaction. We should want all to be saved (as God does), and to pray for them, but that doesn't mean they will be saved.
@@whitemakesright2177 “It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which He knew even before they were fashioned, aware how they would turn out when He created them-and whom nonetheless He created.” -St. Isaac the Syrian
The lake of fire is symbolic and is not literal fire and torment just for the sake of unending agony for those who don't agree about something and not get everything right in a small space of time on earth. All the errors from perverted Latin based translations. Even after understanding that everlasting is a mistranslation from the word Aionios which simple means an era (aeon and sometimes eon)! The whole point of punishment in the first place is so that we learn something from it. If Jesus isn't really the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD, and most of God's own creation will be lost endlessly than I don't want to be saved by a prick God such as the one you're honoring. Here's something worth considering whether you believe this "fire" is for torture or for refining, which I believe fully is a REFINING FIRE! 1 Timothy 2:4 could not be any more clear when it comes to the salvation of EVERYONE. If one learns of the atrocious mis-teachings on hell and continues to teach that Jesus didn't actually save us from death, then it's out of sheer ignorance and an unwillingness to do the research because they are too comfortable with their own traditions! WHO WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED AND TO COME UNTO THE REALIZATION (KNOWLEDGE) OF THE TRUTH - KJV There is no exclusivity in this verse, NONE! As someone who has a seminary degree, I'd imagine you would be someone to put in the time and the research to understand as much as you can, right?! Best
We truly live in such an age of ego it surpasses all before. “God would never judge and condemn anyone eternally” is such a western way of thinking. Goes right along with pope Francis and the eastern patriarch’s ecumenism. God breathed His Spirit into us and we’ve spent centuries exhaling it back out.
@@tastycakes6640 Maximus affirms universalism in _Ambiguum_ 42 and _Ad Thalassium_ 21.8 (with the provisi that it's imprudent to tell this to certain people).
Ye cannot know eternal reality by a definition. time itself, and all the acts and events that fill time are the definition, and it must be lived. -CS Lewis
📙 FREE eBOOK on the wisdom of modern Orthodox Christian elders:
social.protectingveil.com/freebook1
Affirming universal salvation as a hope rather than as a dogma, may seem like splitting hairs, but it's a significant distinction.
why must it not be dogma?
@@hunterterrat9105 my understanding is that it cannot be considered dogma because it is not affirmed in the Nicene Creed or the councils.
@@hunterterrat9105 I suppose God saw it was sufficient and better to leave it as a matter of hope or theological opinion. Perhaps otherwise some would misunderstand and abuse the dogma and use it as an excuse to live according to their will rather than God's.
It's a mealy-mouthed and deceptive way to normalize questioning (and ultimately changing) the Church's teaching.
How about no salvation at all?
"Let us struggle with all our powers to gain Paradise. The gate is very narrow, and don’t listen to those who say that everyone will be saved. This is a trap of Satan so that we won’t struggle."
--St. Paisios the Athonite
Great quote. There are hundreds of similar saints' quotes for every quote which can be interpreted as universalism.
Very true. And yet, Christ said when He appeared to -St- -Silouan- another, anonymous monk described by St. Sophrony Sakharov, crying about those tormented in hell, "Why do you cry so? Don't you know I shall judge the world? I shall forgive everyone who but once in his life invoked God". Or as the Alexandria cobbler who was made an example for Anthony the Great put it, "All will be saved, only I shall remain fruitless".
I mean, unimaginable mercy of God which we might hope for everyone should not make us careless about our own salvation; more than once I witnessed an idea opposite to the cobbler's, "only we, the few right-minded ones, shall be saved, and the rest shall perish".
@@vsevolodtokarev what a beautiful comment. Thank you for sharing
I was able to venerate at St. Pasisios' gravesite near Thessalaniki several years ago. We had to wait in line for at least an hour.
That's ridiculous brother. The earliest church leaders understood that Jesus saved EVERYONE! The perverted Latin-based versions of the bible are what brought this false rendering of hell into existence! Do yourself a favor and get a copy of the
Concordant Literal New Testament with keyword concordance. It's one the very best translations you can get your hands on. Just a tip, but stop limiting what Jesus has done for us! How can Jesus be the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD (1John 4:14) if more than half of the God's creation will be lost forever?! And how will God end up being ALL IN ALL?! (1 Corinthians 15:28) Some food for thought, maybe?! I'm sure I could toss verse after verse at you, but for you to stubbornly put your hand up in my direction. Just saying, maybe challenge yourself a bit more and do what Jesus said about seeking out the truth for yourself, whichever verse that is. Oh yeah, ALWAYS FORGIVE ENDLESSLY (Mathew 18:21-22) ! Best!
I think St Theophan said something similar, that he hopes and prays that all be saved. For love can't stand the notion of someone suffering eternally
Edit: Actually, It was Saint Silouan
See my article on universalism. We can't hope that Christ lied or was mistaken.
The issue to me is that people aren't in hell because of a present rejection of God, but because of a past one. There's the day of judgement, and if you don't accept God before that deadline then you are condemned for eternity. That's the common understanding of it. And if that's the case then you can't say that they are in hell because of a genuine and absolutely unchanging rejection of God, but rather because of the contingent and arbitrary state of growth they were in when it was decided that there was no need to put effort into helping them. Which is a problem, because everyone would be in hell if the day of judgement came the day they were at their worst. Or alternatively, if for some reason there is really no hope that they would change, it means that some people are evil by nature, because apparently knowledge, experiences and relationships wouldn't change them even if God tried, which is a problematic view of creation.
Dr. Hart utilizes a similar idea/philosophy. But, it's kinda just that, a rational/philosophical argument.
On the other hand, we acknowledge that in fact, our choices do have cosmic and eternal consequences. Adam and Eve in the garden show this. According to Church teaching, Salvation is not limited to "God Loves us", but includes that reality that man sinned and only God forgives and saves man from his sin. Hence, we sing at Pascha, Christ is Risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.
Whether we think something is rational or not does not deter whether we should believe it to not. Fro instance, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, etc.
@@matuskaandme5408 I disagree with your last statement, because if you say that God doesn't act according to reason, nor according to morality as far as we can understand it, it would imply that humans are not made in the image of God, but rather have completely different natures, and He doesn't act for our good at all because His understanding of 'good' is alien to actual human experience.
Also, it seems to me contradictory to talk of "the eternal consequences of our actions" at the same time that you talk about the forgiving power of Jesus, because if any sin can be redeemed by Jesus then there doesn't have to be any "eternal" consequence for anything. Adam and Eve could very well be in heaven for all we know.
@@GalaxiaTokyo I may be misreading you - but you seem to imply what I personally find compelling: God has the final Word - and with Him all things are possible!
(The idea that death somehow seals our eternal fate is altogether absent from Scripture - Does God cease to love those who die? Do we cease to have a will? I think not.)
He is "NOT willing for any to perish, but [obversely, His will is] for all to come to repentance" We pray, "They will be done!" He sent for the Word (Logos) not to condemn the world but to save it - *_and His Word (above all, Jesus Christ) cannot fail_*
"so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11
Blessing to you!
-wayne
I’m sorry that my understanding is different than yours. I’m only able to articulate what I believe and my experiences in the Orthodox Church. From my understanding from, God transcends normal human categories. While words can help get us some ideas, God is not bound by my explanations or anyone’s explanations. Divine Revelation is comprised of our encounter with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. As an Orthodox Christian, I strive to stay within the boundaries of what the Church teaches is Divine Revelation. I used to be interested in speculative theology, but I’m only interested in the lived experience of Christ within the Church now.
@@matuskaandme5408 Thanks for your reply - God bless!
Wow. I became Orthodox in part because of the way they seemed to thread the needle between the inexhaustible love of God and the inviolable nature of the gift of man's freedom [In other words, hopeful universalism]. Comment threads like this one make me sad. People who have not closely read the councils seem to be taking the words of a few baptist-to-catholic-to-Orthodox youtube commentators, with their very idiosyncratic takes on the councils and church history, who interpret all nuanced dissent from their positions on everything as either capitulating to perennialism or ecumenism or freemasonry, as the inviolable word of the church fathers, distilled down through the ages to their minds without fault or blemish. I hope the church will do its work, and that twenty years from now, the lingering remnants of baptist vitriol and catholic scholastic elevation of the intellect over the spirit will be smoothed away. Hopefully, those edges that go hand-in-hand with the aforementioned rigid, uncharitable, and reactionary dialectical thinking will give way to the holy spirit's gifts of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, against which there is no law.
Lord have mercy on us all.
It's a struggle for the ages. Lord have mercy! You point out some difficulties that are real in American Orthodoxy. As Greg Pavlik mentioned here, we all ought to be wary of internet stuff and I agree. It often does great harm. For my part, I try to bring some light to this darkened Internet place. If we really want to be Orthodox, you are going to be attending services at an Orthodox Church and be part of an Orthodox community. This means having a community of faithful we see regularly and who hold us accountable and encourage us in the Christian life. Let's all understand, we're never going to get that from the Internet.
Being faithful in our local Orthodox community---that's how Orthodoxy in America will grow and "mature" through those things you rightfully pointed out.
What an eloquently written, spot-on comment!
Your comment is absolutely invaluable as many of my own thoughts and observations echo your own! Thank you for taking the time to share your heartfelt and beautiful thoughts. God bless you and your family.
@@kingofstringz1000 We're grateful for your prayers!
That's a lot of assumptions there, friend. Councils which are received by the whole Church are infallible - that isn't "Dyerism" as you're implying, it is Orthodox dogma and always has been. Those of you questioning the Councils are outside of the mainstream of Orthodoxy. You are the radical fringe, not the people you are attacking.
You can't have the fruits of the Holy Spirit without abiding in the motherly embrace of the Church. That includes accepting her teachings. Nice try playing humble and gentle, but there's nothing humble or gentle about rejecting the Church's teachings.
Thank you! Where can I find the full interview?
The idea that everyone is saved without repentance and humility and struggle is satanic. What’s the point of picking up your cross every day if you’re already saved? Thats so far off from the teachings of Christ, the saints, and Holy Elders.
I would kindly highlight that most expressions of Universal Salvation do not teach that "everyone is saved without repentence and humility". It simply teaches that since God's love never fails, the opportunity to repent and have humility goes beyond this life. The process of theosis is, therefore, an inevitable process that will happen. So, "the point of picking up your cross everyday" is that one must go through the process of theosis, of the destruction of the old self to use the expression, and it is better to start this process now so you may participate in the life of God more deeply sooner, that one hurts more people and has less to regret when we come to "the Day".
I'd ask you to consider 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. Universalists would highlight "the day" is when we come to be fully in God's presence and either, because one has taken up their cross daily, this will be a delightful thing, or, because one has not undertaken this, the fire of will act as a purifier. The revelation that the fire gives will be very painful, but, it's fruit will ultimately be good, which is why it is said they will "suffer loss but yet will be saved-even though only as one escaping through the flames".
Please understand that universal salvation is based off of so much more than this vere but I just thought it would be best to address your legitimate concerns and inform you that your concerns do not apply to most expressions of universalism.
@@matthewsimpson6104 I just haven’t seen any fathers of the church saying this or any saints. As far as I can tell Satan will go to hell and I don’t see him coming out
This is the conclusion I have reached as well. It's like how we can come to trust God for our own salvation, but we dare not teach "assurance of salvation" as a doctrine.
This is something I struggle with and people I am close to do as well. It makes me wonder about the true nature of love. We are called to love each other as ourselves. Sacrificial love that is deep and connecting. How can we then every be satisfied in heaven if all of creation is not redeemed. How can heaven be perfect if we look upon our brothers and sisters who are suffering eternally. Will Christ's victory over death and sin not be ultimate? If you think about it to say that salvation will not be universal will be to say that satan wins in some way. That despite large portions of humanity returning to their true purpose with God, some will eternally be apart form Him. I am not a theologian and I am not very smart, but the thought of hell makes me very sad, as I strive in my life to have deep sympathy and love for all of humanity.
@@sxfnlc
If God is perfectly just, his judgements on his own creatures must also be perfectly just. Isn't a part of faith the trusting that he is just and that when he judges us, we will be judged impartially and justly?
@@sxfnlc
I will let God judge us on our theology in accordance with his own words.
Scripture says there are two groups - sheep and goats. I bet you have read those verses? So not everyone is a sheep according to Christ.
Lisa Couture
@UCplGyT3Ic8B9tw2GtHMbdDw
Since the reply address is all garbled I'm not sure if you're addressing me. I assume you are.
Proper doctrine isn't a lack of love. It's an essential part of the faith...
Read your Bible, don't trust my words. Trust in God's words! He is true and faithful
@UCplGyT3Ic8B9tw2GtHMbdDw
Lisa Couture
BTW because I knew my second reply would be offensive to you I deleted it. you seem offended so it's probably best for us to stop writing each other.
May God bless you in Christ!
@@prayunceasingly2029 My hope, and, I think, the hope of all of us, is that we will *not* be judged justly and impartially, because, if we are, then who could possibly be saved? What argument do I have before God? What defense do I have? "If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with you!"
This video is going to get some infernalists frothing at the mouth. The extreme anger and rage some people have at the idea that some people believe that God will actually accomplish his will is I suspect from a demonic source. It makes me wonder if they would even be in church at all if they didn't have fear motivating them.
No
Great to see him speak again on your channel. Great video
In loving hope!
Nope. I'll stand with Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Macrina, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. Issac of Nineveh, Dionysius the Areopagite, and many others. If the possibility of eternal hellfire and damnation was such an uncontested threat, why was there no mention of it in the earliest Greek creedal statements?
There’s no mention of it because no major heretic taught it. As for your list, St Maximos doesn’t teach it, neither does St Dionysios, Clement only in questionable fragments, and Theodore is hardly a Church Father. St Maximos has the most interesting idea: at the apokatastasis all will be transformed to their original natures - hence God will be shown not to have been the author of any evil - but although all will be united to God, this will vary depending on the ‘inner disposition’ of each. God is only love, but His love can be experienced as either pleasure or torment, depending.
The Nicene Creed says Christ will come to judge the living and the dead. There is little explicit teaching against it early until it becomes somewhat more widely held.
As for your list, St Maximos doesn’t teach it, neither does St Dionysios; Clement only in questionable fragments, and Theodore is hardly a Church Father. I don’t know what passage you have in mind for St Irenaeus. And many others? -I’m afraid not. It’s a short list, it’s hardly a Patristic consensus.
St Maximo’s’ clarification on the apokatastasis is actually enlightening. All natures will be restored to their pristine state, and all will be united to God, Who is only love. But depending on the ‘inner disposition,’ for some this union with God’s love will be unutterable pleasure, for others, torment.
Did Issac of Syria affirm universalism?
Yes - very much so.
No
@@zakcaldwell8465 He actually straight up did.
The contrary positions are a bit less unambiguous: there are certainly scholars who believe Maximus believed in (ultimate) universal salvation; more clearly, the Scriptural language around torment "in the Age" is certainly not so unambiguous. In any case, its very good to see how Orthodox hierarchs approach these mysteries with caution, reverence and respect for the Tradition.
He's being disingenuous, trying to create a space for heresy to be normalized. He essentially said in this video "you can believe in universalism if you want to." No, you can't. Universalism is a condemned heresy that was settled centuries ago, not some modern controversy that is still being worked out. Met. Kallistos Ware does the same thing under the guise of "dialogue." That is the modernist way of getting the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak.
@@whitemakesright2177 whatever. Weird how the fundamentalist problem and the racist problem(Mr "White Makes Right") seem convergent.
@@whitemakesright2177 The idea that universalism was condemned by some council is a myth. The parts of Origen's thought that were condemned were not universalism as such.
@@GalaxiaTokyo Certainly some have taken this more recent view. It seems to come from the mistaken view and understanding of Ecumenical councils and their acts.
Craig over at the website orthodox christian theology tackled this topic recently. He did a good job of explaining things.
Long story short, like Archbishop Alexander said, Origen and universal salvation indeed was condemned by Church council.
@@gregpavlik6474 Using "fundamentalist" as a pejorative makes you an unserious person. As does making unwarranted assumptions about someone based on their username. So-called "fundamentalists" are those who actually believe what the Church teaches.
Thank you for posting this excerpt!
As for Abp Golitzin’s ‘personal hope’ rather than ‘dogma,’ it really does seem to make something of a difference. But I am not prepared to say whether one should be openly teaching this or not.
Thanks again Despota, by (y)our prayers and blessings...On behalf of ALL and for ALL...Whatever that means!
I think you mean "Vladyka"
This Bishop went from advocating Christians learn from the Talmud, to leading people to ponder universal Salvation.
Archbishop Alexander is MY bishop, and he has done no such thing.
To a young priest attached to our altar his Eminence stated unequivocally that Universal Apokatastasis of all human beings is a heresy. Love binds us to pray for all men, and even to hope that somehow all may say yes to God, but we have no grounds to declare such or teach that all human beings will eventually choose Christ over self..
As for the Talmud: one can learn from it: things that enlighten the mind...and things that poison the soul. Only the accepted dogma of the Orthodox Church may be universally embraced.
@@Chittwood2 How do you explain the fact that the Archbishop has said publicly that the Fifth Ecumenical Council was wrong to condemn Origen, and that Origen is a saint? See my comment further up for the proof the he said this.
@@Chittwood2 We certainly have grounds to teach it as it is true.
@@whitemakesright2177 Because the anathemas against Origen are an interpolation.
I'd say that universal salvation is good for doctrine. Very good really.
However it must be stressed, that is before our technical views about the eschaton and throughout the means of our views on Christ's incarnation, life, sacrifice, resurrection, ascension and atonement as well as all matters around soteriology just how important our state of inspiration is while on the earth.
For we cannot consciously forsake our progressive sanctification for momentarily going to transgress the divine presence of the Holy One.
These actions are the definition of finding inspiration of antichrist uncleanness in ourselves, as it were, do not let Satan indwell you. To the best of one's abilities be conscious and anyways strive to be better.
This is exactly what I believe is the proper exegesis of 1 John chapter 2.
So how can we recognize our mission and our commission and our omission throughout life to live it to our utmost holiness? It is by spiritually profiting as much as we've been given to, and that's only in seeking out the Holy and through His grace saving every moment of our lives, that is to remain always nearer to His gracious and righteous will.
- Your Quality Apologist
Christ collapsed this sin of duality. Until you join him there you will not see and you can have no final answer to these worldly plagues.
Beautiful way to see the issue.
A very wise man
Those who think hell must be eternal to be taken seriously may not grasp the horror of separation from God, even temporarily. Mental agony, despair, and isolation are unbearable for anyone who has experienced them. Repentance should stem from the realization of one’s brokenness and the desire for restoration, not merely fear of punishment.
The idea of needing eternity to motivate repentance might come from people who haven’t grappled with the kind of pain that transforms a person over time. True repentance arises from encountering God’s love and realizing the harm one has done to oneself and others-not from terror. Fear may provoke superficial change, but love inspires true transformation. The free will argument is a dubble edge sword also since you only have it till you die and even then only christians „have it”. What free will was there for a person who was born in another religion or hell even in the wrong denomination. Do i think universalim is true ....i don't know I hope it is.
This psychological not biblical. My faith comes from the Word of God in the Bible.
God is not out to trick us
Universal salvation is a very dangerous understanding on this side of the grave. The others side is already understood and changeless. Our purpose on this is side is to keep the commandments, the threats, the doctrines and the promises paramount! If we can't do it while we are alive we got no chance in hell of doing it on the otherside. There is no guarantee. Christianity is not a heavenly insurance program where Jesus pays all the premiums. We are to follow him and not ride in on him
Well put!
Universal salvation is God's desire.
sounds like works. I know I couldn't get to heaven without Jesus, no doubt in my mind. I mean, he DID pay for my sins. Isn't it just a matter of accepting that reality?
Why anyone would be terribly worried that those who caused millions to suffer - e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Mao - might not be saved is beyond me. And it makes zero sense theologically. Rather, st Isaac’s simple assertion that most (not all) will be saved, for this is consistent with a Benevolent Creator Who does not create conditions for salvation too difficult for most people - is theologically a more fruitful line of inquiry.
“We can’t teach universal salvation as doctrine but we can hope for it.” ☕️
“The great mystery of the divine incarnation teaches these things and the like. For through these things mingling with humanity-through being born with all of the properties of [our] nature, both birth and nurture, and growth, and going out as far as the experience of death-he has accomplished all that has been said before, both freeing man from vice and healing the inventor of vice himself. For the healing of a disease is the purification of the sickness, even if it is painful.”
-St. Gregory of Nyssa, "Catechetical Discourses"
If the "Pillar of Orthodoxy" and "Father of the Fathers" could teach universal salvation-even of the devil himself!-as doctrine, why can't we?
Not to mention that the Council of Ephesus called St. Gregory Nyssen the "great bulwark against heresy"
If his writings are the bulwark, according to the infallible council, then his view of apokatastasis is minimally acceptable and maximally may deserve to be dogmatic
The human “no” to God is not a product of virtue, but a product of ego, and cannot outlast the Infinite.
This “no” does not stem from one’s capacity to live out from that which is authentic to their God-given design, but stems from a lack of integration into what it truly is to be human.
From the very beginning, man had yet to be perfected his capacity to will God. Never by his own ability, but by grace through divine persuasion alone.
A question in similar stream.
How can one be rational and yet enslaved to systems that they think serve them but really are simply bondage?
The breaker of chains ⛓️ wouldn't allow one by His revelatory powers be so irrational that they cannot actually see what true freedom is. Therefore what people often call "free will" or libertarianism is actually about the *acts* and manifestation of bondage and being not free. And therein all delusions from actual freedom that such evil has always occluded from.
So for me I believe in overcoming grace as we're in a synergistic state of awareness, which is a gift that not all are bestowed enough to evolve out in a personal experience (while in the earth).
And eventually in the increasing degrees of the absolute revelation of all that is promised to us by the scriptures, there is that monergistic state of the Holy One and that is an irresistible grace for all former senses are collapsed to the pure essential reality of His divinity.
That is a very different matter indeed, although the latter inspires the former obviously.
- YQA
I look at the Lord's many warnings including " few be there who find it", speaking of the "narrow way". Though I would hope all would come to Christ and so to eternal salvation. In the end God has it settled, and He is beyond my understanding. I choose Him, will follow Him (with His help and mercy) no matter what, and desire and pray that others would too. I pray for mercy for loved ones I am not so sure about where they are eternally. I would think the whole point of controlling the passions and sin as well as Theosis is crucial to this life and the next.
The Nicene Creed reads that Christ will come to judge the living and the dead. One doesn’t find the issue in the earliest creeds likely because no one was widely teaching Universalism (until Origen).
Scholars mistakenly put St Maximos, St Dionysios and some others in the Universalist camp , there really are not many Patristic proponents of the idea.
St Maximos actually has the most edifying teaching on the apokatastasis. The. All creation will be restored to its ‘natural’ state, and, since God is Love, all will be united to God. However, this will be received , depending on one’s ’inner disposition,’ as either unutterable pleasure or torment (if one has not developed some receptivity to union with God).
PS - in the Orthodox Church, many Saints also teach that the prayers of the Church can indeed ‘save’ someone from the fires of Hades.
Wonderful!
Say the first Adam existed ..or say it represents humanity
Just one single choice was given :
I beleive ghr first Adam literally existed ..
So 'part of the majestic image of God for...space with .. infinite divinity ' to paraphrase the bishop ..he had ..
So highly developed mind (naming all flora and fauna etc ) ...this first Adam could not make a simple straight choice : do not eat of this fruit 🍓
Now what choices we have !! If a single choice was missed and messed up so bad ..how can one expect after 100s of generations of evil sufferings sin ..confusion
When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd...Matthew 9 36 ..
What can one choose ? How can one choose ?
The capacity of rational creatures have become helpless and harrased . ..
Heck we even killed God in flesh !!???
Only God can and will completely save ..
For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do... Romans 7
No sir .. I can't make .. incapable of making simple choices ..how can I make bigger ones ?
So what is the solution ?
I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him Hosea 14
But has not the word being preached ?
But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”
Romans 10
But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people Romans 10
No choices .. I don't even understand ....how can the supremely good ( God ) be so continuously rejected .. 40 generations till Micah ..??!!
So what is the solution ? Only God
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 11
The exuberant .. ejaculation of praise and worship follows that discovery of the apostle Paul
Oh, the depth of the riches(AY) of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God!(AZ)
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!(BA)
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”[j](BB)
35 “Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”[k](BC)
36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.(BD)
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
This is certainly a rational or philosophical perspective. As Archbishop Alexander explained, Orthodox have a different teaching that upholds man’s will. Orthodox don’t hold that man has no will and no choice.
Dr. Hart does seem inclined to do away with mans will, at least as the Church teaches.
@@matuskaandme5408
That is a good point Matuska .. thanks 🙏 for pointing that out and taking thr time to reply.
Among Christian philosophers like Prof Tom Talbott..Alvin Platinga..and more radically in William lane craig ( molinism ) and Roger Olson ( who is more a thelogian . arminian variety ) and in general i have seen human choice and free will is given a prominent place ..the last two emphasize liberarian free will ..
This is a thorny problem ..for they can not be ..in my opinion ..any discussion on certain aspects of philosophy without free will....i have noticed it over and over ...
But Prof Richard Beck attempts to see thr quandry
Start of quote
"As I've written about before, I think it's problematic to put so much theological weight on such a sketchy anthropological concept like "free will." I could ask Scot the same sort of question about free will that I asked of other theological advocates of free will:”"
he continues “Why would you build any theological argument upon a philosophically contested, scientifically disputed, and perennially controversial anthropocentric abstraction?”
end of quote
More importantly when i read Romans 9-11..I see something startling ..even Apostle Paul does not answer the question directly but i feel even he indulges in ad-hominem attack..
here it is : One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?"
But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" romans 9 : 19,
DBH at times speaks of in deterministic manner at least in TASBS
Thanks 🙏 for indulging me ..😊
Correct ☦️ the two thieves on the cross
A careful reading of St Maximus the Confessor shows that he was a universalist.
"Hopeful" universalism is incoherent. To quote D. B. Hart: "anyone who hopes for the universal reconciliation of creatures with God must already believe that this would be the best possible ending to the Christian narrative; and such a person has then no excuse for imagining that God could bring any but the best possible ending to pass without thereby being in some sense a failed creator".
I don't care what you think of Hart; that is some very very good reasoning. I think a certain type of agnostism concering the afterlife isn't out of place. Well if it doesn't damage your faith that is.
Apart from the creation, the Abrahamic covenant, the Koreshic Oath, the Angel's gospel, the death entombment and resurrection of Christ and the consummation of prophecy revealed by Sts Paul and John, there is nothing on which to base a doctrine of universal salvation in scripture. Ok maybe just the old prophets and psalms, but no more, nothing to see here but the omega plan.
The tension of Orthodoxy.
A sinner in heaven is as miserable aa a saint in hell. God offers salvation to all, his resurrection is proof of that. We have free will to accept or reject, those in hell continue to reject his salvation just as they did on earth because hell is where all passions are continually enflamed and consuming.
I'd rather hear there is no universal salvation and be pleasantly surprised than to preach it and be caught up in heresy.
if all are sinners... who is in heaven then?
As always, His eminence proves to be an amazing Archpastor.
It is sad to see the word of God constrained by the teachings and indoctrinations of men.
1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Hart is wrong. If People can live like devils and later enjoy eternal life in God’s presence, then nothing is required of man. This destroys any need to preach the Gospel, call sinners to repent or faith in Christ, or the need for church or sacraments. All things will be resurrected. But not all things will enjoy the life to come.
Christian Universalists don't argue against the existence of hell. They argue against the idea of an absolutely eternal hell that lasts as long as heaven, aka, for all eternity. The book of revelation seems to say that hell comes to an end, and it doesn't specify what happens to those who are suffering in it.
It's a shame the archbishop didn't actually engage with argument made in That All Shall Be Saved. I mean, I understand why he didn't; no one has yet been able to refute it. I guess I was hoping for more than just one more appeal to authority. He didn't actually make much of a case against universal salvation at all.
You clearly don't understand how Orthodoxy works. The teaching of the Church (which is the teaching of Christ Himself) is the ultimate foundation of everything we believe. No "argument" will overcome that.
As you learn more about Orthodoxy, you will find there are dogmatic teachings. These are primarily about the Person of Christ and especially as they relate to deification. There are what we call theologumenon. There are aporias. There are things on which many Fathers are silent.
I think many converts are looking for a tight system and a convenient set of answers to any question. That's not what we have.
@@whitemakesright2177 Archimandrite Sophrony remembered a conversation between [Silouan] and a certain hermit who declared with evident satisfaction,
‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’
Obviously upset, [Silouan] said,
‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there you looked down and saw someone burning in hell-fire - would you feel happy?’
‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.
[Silouan] answered him in a sorrowful countenance:
‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’
@@thadcox8550 The problem is not in the hermit's statement itself, but in his evident satisfaction. We should want all to be saved (as God does), and to pray for them, but that doesn't mean they will be saved.
@@whitemakesright2177 “It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which He knew even before they were fashioned, aware how they would turn out when He created them-and whom nonetheless He created.”
-St. Isaac the Syrian
❤️☦️❤️
The lake of fire is symbolic and is not literal fire and torment just for the sake of unending agony for those who don't agree about something and not get everything right in a small space of time on earth. All the errors from perverted Latin based translations. Even after understanding that everlasting is a mistranslation from the word Aionios which simple means an era (aeon and sometimes eon)! The whole point of punishment in the first place is so that we learn something from it. If Jesus isn't really the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD, and most of God's own creation will be lost endlessly than I don't want to be saved by a prick God such as the one you're honoring. Here's something worth considering whether you believe this "fire" is for torture or for refining, which I believe fully is a REFINING FIRE! 1 Timothy 2:4 could not be any more clear when it comes to the salvation of EVERYONE. If one learns of the atrocious mis-teachings on hell and continues to teach that Jesus didn't actually save us from death, then it's out of sheer ignorance and an unwillingness to do the research because they are too comfortable with their own traditions!
WHO WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED AND TO COME UNTO THE REALIZATION (KNOWLEDGE) OF THE TRUTH - KJV
There is no exclusivity in this verse, NONE! As someone who has a seminary degree, I'd imagine you would be someone to put in the time and the research to understand as much as you can, right?! Best
We truly live in such an age of ego it surpasses all before. “God would never judge and condemn anyone eternally” is such a western way of thinking. Goes right along with pope Francis and the eastern patriarch’s ecumenism. God breathed His Spirit into us and we’ve spent centuries exhaling it back out.
The most prominent universalists in pre-Schism Orthodoxy - St Gregory of Nyssa, St Maximus the Confessor, St Isaac the Syrian - were all easterners.
@@MagnificentFiend Maximus wasn’t a universalist.
@@tastycakes6640 Maximus affirms universalism in _Ambiguum_ 42 and _Ad Thalassium_ 21.8 (with the provisi that it's imprudent to tell this to certain people).
Universal salvation would relegate Jesus words and warnings to the realm of dishonesty
No not necessary so
Jonah?
Hell can exist but not be completely eternal, this is a possibility. Also, are we certain that Christ cannot be accepted once one is in hell?
Well that's a way to frame the statement "we interpret those sayings differently"
Anathema!
Ye cannot know eternal reality by a definition. time itself, and all the acts and events that fill time are the definition, and it must be lived. -CS Lewis