Growing up as a protestant with the idea of eternal conscious torment, it became clear to me that no one really believes it. Sure, they'll pay it lip service, but watch what they say at the funeral of a wayward young man who killed himself drunk driving. They'll say very hopeful things, and someone will confidently declare "I know he's with the Lord", flying in the face of what they "believe". Meanwhile they will refuse to pray for the salvation of someone who has already died. It's a hopeless situation. Embracing universalism and Orthodoxy, for me, made it possible to accept the reality of damnation. Perdition is a real danger, with a reality most people don't ever stop to think about. Precisely because it is not absolutely permanent, eternal, irrevocable - it is therefor not a contradiction for God to be Love and also allow his creatures to throw themselves into ages of torment. Repentance is necessary, of course. No one will be saved without repentance and faith in Christ, because salvation is by definition reconciliation to Christ. Annihilation, carried out as a total unmaking with no memory of the person remaining, is conceivable as justice - but isn't this view more clearly denounced by the Church? Many formulations of universalism, especially of the Unitarian variety, are foolish and soul endangering, absolutely. But good riddance to the hobbling cognitive dissonance of dogmatic eternal torment, unexamined; and let us pray for the salvation of our loved ones who have passed: _O Lord, seek out the lost soul of your servant N.: if it be possible, have mercy. Your judgments are unfathomable. Do not count this prayer of mine as a sin, but rather may your holy will be done._
Them saying “I know he’s with the Lord” is anecdotal. Also, Orthodoxy would rather state that we don’t know if someone is with the Lord or not, except for those canonised as Saints. But Orthodox also confesses that we only know of a fraction of the Saints. There will be many more than who are canonised we just don’t know who. But to jump immediately to everyone states this so they must not believe in hell, is faulty especially since they were Protestant and people can be wrong. The position of universalism is predicated on the teaching of 2 Saints. 1 of whom in this case was likely influenced by a condemned heretic. This is not the Orthodox way of affirming doctrine/dogma. But rather more akin to the Roman Catholic form of Church governance where what 1 man says is true. The Orthodox form of dogma and doctrinal affirmation comes through cohesion and consensus. What is taught century after century. Such as the need for repentance in salvation. God bless you. Peace be with you my friend.
Excellent discussion that reveals so much Phronema, see Dr. Jeannie Constantinou, and supports why I’m an Eastern Orthodox Convert. I don’t go to the Church of St. Gregory or St. Isaac. I worship in the Body of Christ that is not defined by any man but rather maintains the authority of the Holy Spirit to determine Truth through the enduring voices of the many as described by Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou.
The fire of purification in the afterlife that suffering souls go through is a kind of actual repentance..and saying yes to God once pure naturally flows out from that... The consuming fire is the Love of God's holy presence..the soul purified in such holy love becomes love..merges into the presence and unification with the holy loving Father
Thank you for this @AncientFaithMinistries. Always good to see a video with David Bradshaw. Aristotle East and West is greatly appreciated. I look forward to learning who his academic proteges are. Christianity at large desperately needs such solid scholarship and will continue to need it in the future.
Let us make man in our image. What choice did man have? None. That's like me making a house that falls apart and I put the responsibility on the framing I created. That just sounds foolish. How about God will redeem ALL of His creation? I know, it's heresy to think God cam be so big that He redeems all of creation.
So how exactly does the individual’s free will retain continuity in the eschaton? It’s somehow “frozen” in a certain dimension but free in another? If the damned aren’t “annihilated” then are they just living amongst the redeemed, being tortured for eternity? Will that put a damper on the eternal environment?
In the ancient world, rich people did not have gated communities and private jets to hide themselves away from the poor. So the way welfare worked then was that you took the crippled and sick to the door of the local rich person. The rich person was supposed to throw some coins to those at his gate as he entered and exited his home. That's not what the Rich Man did for Lazarus. He literally stepped over him every day. If you look very carefully at what Jesus says about the Rich Man and Lazarus, you will see that while the Rich Man is in hell, he doesn't even bother talking to Lazarus. He still thinks Lazarus is the non-entity he thought he was in life. He just asks Abraham to order Lazarus around like he's a non-entity and doesn't even apologize to Lazarus for treating him the way he did in life. Repentance is the first step away from hell. Hell is not only full of demons, its also full of humans who cannot repent. Hell is meant to protect Heaven against these.
People who think Muslims worship the same God Christians worship, should ask one of them. They will become furious and insist that they don't worship the same God we worship. I came to Orthodoxy to escape all the heresies, like pagan, Marxist universalism, solo scriptura, and prosperity gospel. No matter how many propagandists push universalism, when Christ returns, there will be a remnant who still believe, and faithfully worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Christ is King. Jesus will win in the end.
Isn't "Jesus will win in the end" exactly what universalists believe? I think you're confusing universalism with unitarianism. EDIT: Forgive me for being argumentative. It sounds like you know some heterodox we could be praying for. If you give me some first names, I'll commit to praying for them daily for at least a month. If you don't want to post names publically here, let's work it out 🙏
How can one suffer without repentance while also knowing the true God? St Gregory doesn’t make the recipient of post-mortem reconciliation solely a passive participant. Yes those analogies appear to do so, but his beliefs on freedom counter balance those ideas. Namely his interpretation of the use of “subjection” in scripture. From St Gregory’s treatise on 1st corinthians: “When all enemies have become God’s footstool, they will receive a trace of divinity in themselves. Once death has been destroyed - for if there are no persons who will die, not even death would exist - then we will be subjected to him; but this is not understood by some sort of servile humility. Our subjection, however, consists of a kingdom, incorruptibility and blessedness living in us; this is Paul’s meaning of being subjected to God. Christ perfects his good in us by himself, and effects in us what is pleasing to him.”
It is sad that satan has deceived so many to think that a God of love could create people just to torture them forever. It would be far more loving to not create them in the first place.
This points back to the serpent staff of Moses in the wilderness. The serpent was lifted up for the healing of all, but only those who looked at the serpent were healed. Likewise, salvation is offered to all through the lifting up of the Son of Man but it’s only through us coming to Him that we may have life (John 5:40) we have to make a choice to draw closer to Christ.
So our salvation is up to us to respond making it something we have to do. I see our salvation as a declaration of what Jesus said He came to do / John 4:42 “ Jesus is the Christ , the savior of the world “ not the potential savior which most in the western Latin church believe. John 11:47 “ Jesus came to save the world not judge the world “ Why do you think Jesus fails in this mission, because you do not believe Jesus is the savior of the world just a potential savior. 1Tim 2:3-6 “ This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior, who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth “ Did God fail? 1 Tim 4:9-11 “ because we trust in the living God, who is the savior of all men , especially of those who believe “ There are many more scriptures that talk about this , so why do you ignore or change the plain reading of the text?
@@jeffsaunders4812 The translation of 1 Timothy 2:4 you’ve picked out conveniently fits your narrative. However this is a very uncommon translation of the text only supported by 3 translations, most would say the Lord “desires that all be saved” rather than “who will have all men to be saved” which would completely negate the synergy of man in salvation and his free will response to the Lord. Not however that even if it says He wills all to be saved, it doesn’t negate the fact that the Lord doesn’t divinely ordain all to be saved. This is why we are taught by the Church to lean not unto our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6) and rather be beholden to the teaching of Church whether through written epistle or word of mouth (2 Thessalonians 2:15) because the Church. Not you or I, is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) we ought to look at what the Church teaches. And the consensus of the Church is the necessity for repentance in salvation and the nature of Christ in His second coming as judge. God bless you
The comments about St. Isaac's canonization raise an interesting question. Can the Church canonize someone in error? If it's just a matter St. Isaac only making the cut because his potentially problematic writing weren't on the radar of the Church at the time, it feels very circumstantial vs the leading of the Holy Spirit in the Church to acknowledge/canonize a Saint. Or can we rest on the fact that if the Church has spoken on this matter, he is indeed a Saint, even if he may have had some problematic opinions?
Universalism isn’t condemned at Constantinople 553. We now know those canons weren’t original to that council. Norman Tanner’s critical edition doesn’t contain the anti- universalist canons.
Greetings David. Not sure if I would agree. Sounds good, but do we really get this from there? What did Origen write in his letter to "friends" in Alexandria? "Some of those persons who take pleasure in accusing their neighbors bring, against us and our teaching, the charge of blasphemy; though, from us, they have never heard anything of the kind. Let them take heed to themselves how they refuse to mark that solemn warning, which says that “Revilers shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:10), when they declare that I hold that [satan,] the father of wickedness and perdition (that is, the devil), and of those who are cast forth from the kingdom of God are to be saved-a thing which no man can say, even if he has departed from his senses and is manifestly insane." AT THE VERY BEST Origen believed that more will be saved than damned but EVERYONE SAVED? There is no evidence that he ever taught that, rather is this epistle an opposition. Or is it merely mistranslated? I would love to hear your explanation to justify your position.
The argument that had the Church known of St. Isaac's writings he wouldn't have been canonized sounds similar to the argument that had the name of Origen not been added last moment to the list he wouldn't have been anathema. Both of these arguments sound like, "The Church got it wrong but I know the truth. I know that guy is a saint and that guy isn't but the Church doesn't know it."
I would love to see a neutral or universalist leaning historian debate this. A lot of what he said is just flat out false. God wants all saved, nothing is impossible for Him, and God can change any heart whenever He wants. No where does the Bible say we cannot be changed after death, and it says many times all will eventually be restored, the "restoration of all ".
Call me a schismatic but it's so sad that Origen was anathematized. If only he could be seen as a saint in the same sense as St. Augustine. Deeply flawed but still a holy man.
No, it's not tragic, nor is it unexpected. Origen is a thrice-condemned heretic. Sure he had some good writings, but his ideas are dangerous and spiritually destructive. The Holy Orthodox Church condemned him in multiple œcumenical councils. But by all means, if some among you following Ancient Faith seem to know more than the Church, and the bishops in those councils led by the Holy Spirit, then do correct them.
So sad to see you think Jesus was either a liar or a failure, and our father a cruel and abominable torturer. You don’t even believe the words he spoke. You believe he will be ‘All in Some’? You believe his love sometimes fails? You believe his mercies DO come to an end? That his wrath WILL last forever? You seem to love the teachings of man and not the very book you swear by.
There are a lot of verses that are very PROBLAMATIC for the Universalist viewpoint. John 3:36 says, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, but the wrath of God abides on him.” NOTICE it does NOT say, "He will EVENTUALLY see eternal life... Revelation 20:10 says, "The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." By the way, the beast (anti-christ) and the false prophet are NOT demons but men. Revelation 14:9-11 says, "Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” Revelation 20:11-15 says, "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." By the way, there is NOT one single verse that even hints that ANYONE thrown into the Lake of Fire will EVER be let out of said lake. 1Timothy 4:10 ...and we believe in the living God who is the savior of ALL men, especially for those who believe." Meaning: Salvation is offered to all men but is ONLY special to those who believe. Why? Again, John 3:36 says, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
They were in fact both universalists. Most scholars agree that both of them held the eschatological view, and I would go as far as saying both of them were much more clearer than Origen and went further than Origen in some aspects. St. Isaac of Nineveh's universalism is extremely evident in his last 3 homilies which puts the focus on eschatology. He affirms the finitude of hellfire in homily 39 (II) and absolutely affirms universalism in homily 40 (II) stating the following: "and it is clear that He does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, He is going to bring them to a single equal state of perfection." For St. Gregory his universalism is just astonishingly evident and present in almost all of his major works, from the life of moses to the song of songs which was most likely one of if not his last work. But St. Gregory went even further than Origen in "On the Soul and the Resurrection" where he seems to affirm the salvation of the "inventor of evil", and in his "In Illud" he explicitly states that all will be saved, stating things such as: "For it is evident that God will in truth be all in all when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created being is at harmony with itself". What's also important to note is that St. Gregory undoubtedly held to the ontological non-subsistence of evil and that there will be a time when evil does not exist anymore, which is utterly incompatible with ECT. Overall, as most St. Gregory scholars have noted, the question is not even open as the cumulative case and his overall broader vision seen throughout all his writings is so strongly universalistic that it far outweighs the obviously rhetorical statements regarding Judas.
Growing up as a protestant with the idea of eternal conscious torment, it became clear to me that no one really believes it. Sure, they'll pay it lip service, but watch what they say at the funeral of a wayward young man who killed himself drunk driving. They'll say very hopeful things, and someone will confidently declare "I know he's with the Lord", flying in the face of what they "believe". Meanwhile they will refuse to pray for the salvation of someone who has already died. It's a hopeless situation.
Embracing universalism and Orthodoxy, for me, made it possible to accept the reality of damnation. Perdition is a real danger, with a reality most people don't ever stop to think about. Precisely because it is not absolutely permanent, eternal, irrevocable - it is therefor not a contradiction for God to be Love and also allow his creatures to throw themselves into ages of torment. Repentance is necessary, of course. No one will be saved without repentance and faith in Christ, because salvation is by definition reconciliation to Christ. Annihilation, carried out as a total unmaking with no memory of the person remaining, is conceivable as justice - but isn't this view more clearly denounced by the Church? Many formulations of universalism, especially of the Unitarian variety, are foolish and soul endangering, absolutely. But good riddance to the hobbling cognitive dissonance of dogmatic eternal torment, unexamined; and let us pray for the salvation of our loved ones who have passed:
_O Lord, seek out the lost soul of your servant N.: if it be possible, have mercy. Your judgments are unfathomable. Do not count this prayer of mine as a sin, but rather may your holy will be done._
Them saying “I know he’s with the Lord” is anecdotal. Also, Orthodoxy would rather state that we don’t know if someone is with the Lord or not, except for those canonised as Saints. But Orthodox also confesses that we only know of a fraction of the Saints. There will be many more than who are canonised we just don’t know who.
But to jump immediately to everyone states this so they must not believe in hell, is faulty especially since they were Protestant and people can be wrong.
The position of universalism is predicated on the teaching of 2 Saints. 1 of whom in this case was likely influenced by a condemned heretic. This is not the Orthodox way of affirming doctrine/dogma. But rather more akin to the Roman Catholic form of Church governance where what 1 man says is true.
The Orthodox form of dogma and doctrinal affirmation comes through cohesion and consensus. What is taught century after century. Such as the need for repentance in salvation. God bless you. Peace be with you my friend.
Excellent discussion that reveals so much Phronema, see Dr. Jeannie Constantinou, and supports why I’m an Eastern Orthodox Convert. I don’t go to the Church of St. Gregory or St. Isaac. I worship in the Body of Christ that is not defined by any man but rather maintains the authority of the Holy Spirit to determine Truth through the enduring voices of the many as described by Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou.
The fire of purification in the afterlife that suffering souls go through is a kind of actual repentance..and saying yes to God once pure naturally flows out from that...
The consuming fire is the Love of God's holy presence..the soul purified in such holy love becomes love..merges into the presence and unification with the holy loving Father
Thank you for this @AncientFaithMinistries. Always good to see a video with David Bradshaw. Aristotle East and West is greatly appreciated. I look forward to learning who his academic proteges are. Christianity at large desperately needs such solid scholarship and will continue to need it in the future.
Invite David Bentley Hart on. It would be great to have a scholar who offers the perspectives of Saint Isaac of Nineveh and Saint Gregory of Nyssa
Universalism in some way is just logical to me, I don’t need Origen to tell me anything.
it is found throughout the scriptures - which is the only important factor
Let us make man in our image. What choice did man have? None. That's like me making a house that falls apart and I put the responsibility on the framing I created. That just sounds foolish. How about God will redeem ALL of His creation? I know, it's heresy to think God cam be so big that He redeems all of creation.
So how exactly does the individual’s free will retain continuity in the eschaton? It’s somehow “frozen” in a certain dimension but free in another? If the damned aren’t “annihilated” then are they just living amongst the redeemed, being tortured for eternity? Will that put a damper on the eternal environment?
In the ancient world, rich people did not have gated communities and private jets to hide themselves away from the poor. So the way welfare worked then was that you took the crippled and sick to the door of the local rich person. The rich person was supposed to throw some coins to those at his gate as he entered and exited his home. That's not what the Rich Man did for Lazarus. He literally stepped over him every day. If you look very carefully at what Jesus says about the Rich Man and Lazarus, you will see that while the Rich Man is in hell, he doesn't even bother talking to Lazarus. He still thinks Lazarus is the non-entity he thought he was in life. He just asks Abraham to order Lazarus around like he's a non-entity and doesn't even apologize to Lazarus for treating him the way he did in life. Repentance is the first step away from hell. Hell is not only full of demons, its also full of humans who cannot repent. Hell is meant to protect Heaven against these.
Interesting take!!
People who think Muslims worship the same God Christians worship, should ask one of them. They will become furious and insist that they don't worship the same God we worship. I came to Orthodoxy to escape all the heresies, like pagan, Marxist universalism, solo scriptura, and prosperity gospel. No matter how many propagandists push universalism, when Christ returns, there will be a remnant who still believe, and faithfully worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Christ is King. Jesus will win in the end.
Isn't "Jesus will win in the end" exactly what universalists believe? I think you're confusing universalism with unitarianism.
EDIT: Forgive me for being argumentative. It sounds like you know some heterodox we could be praying for. If you give me some first names, I'll commit to praying for them daily for at least a month. If you don't want to post names publically here, let's work it out 🙏
How can one suffer without repentance while also knowing the true God?
St Gregory doesn’t make the recipient of post-mortem reconciliation solely a passive participant. Yes those analogies appear to do so, but his beliefs on freedom counter balance those ideas. Namely his interpretation of the use of “subjection” in scripture.
From St Gregory’s treatise on 1st corinthians:
“When all enemies have become God’s footstool, they will receive a trace of divinity in themselves. Once death has been destroyed - for if there are no persons who will die, not even death would exist - then we will be subjected to him; but this is not understood by some sort of servile humility. Our subjection, however, consists of a kingdom, incorruptibility and blessedness living in us; this is Paul’s meaning of being subjected to God. Christ perfects his good in us by himself, and effects in us what is pleasing to him.”
It is sad that satan has deceived so many to think that a God of love could create people just to torture them forever. It would be far more loving to not create them in the first place.
Can you provide a resource or quote the council that shows specifically that Origen's teaching on Universalism was condemned?
Jesus said “ If I be lifted up I will drag all men unto me” look at the Greek most modern version say draw but the Greek is drag
This points back to the serpent staff of Moses in the wilderness. The serpent was lifted up for the healing of all, but only those who looked at the serpent were healed. Likewise, salvation is offered to all through the lifting up of the Son of Man but it’s only through us coming to Him that we may have life (John 5:40) we have to make a choice to draw closer to Christ.
So our salvation is up to us to respond making it something we have to do. I see our salvation as a declaration of what Jesus said He came to do / John 4:42 “ Jesus is the Christ , the savior of the world “ not the potential savior which most in the western Latin church believe. John 11:47 “ Jesus came to save the world not judge the world “ Why do you think Jesus fails in this mission, because you do not believe Jesus is the savior of the world just a potential savior. 1Tim 2:3-6 “ This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior, who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth “ Did God fail? 1 Tim 4:9-11 “ because we trust in the living God, who is the savior of all men , especially of those who believe “ There are many more scriptures that talk about this , so why do you ignore or change the plain reading of the text?
@@jeffsaunders4812 The translation of 1 Timothy 2:4 you’ve picked out conveniently fits your narrative. However this is a very uncommon translation of the text only supported by 3 translations, most would say the Lord “desires that all be saved” rather than “who will have all men to be saved” which would completely negate the synergy of man in salvation and his free will response to the Lord.
Not however that even if it says He wills all to be saved, it doesn’t negate the fact that the Lord doesn’t divinely ordain all to be saved.
This is why we are taught by the Church to lean not unto our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6) and rather be beholden to the teaching of Church whether through written epistle or word of mouth (2 Thessalonians 2:15) because the Church. Not you or I, is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) we ought to look at what the Church teaches. And the consensus of the Church is the necessity for repentance in salvation and the nature of Christ in His second coming as judge.
God bless you
Wow! Thank you for the clarity of your stand on St Isaac, Dr Bradshaw… I will focus on his Ascetical Homilies…
The comments about St. Isaac's canonization raise an interesting question. Can the Church canonize someone in error? If it's just a matter St. Isaac only making the cut because his potentially problematic writing weren't on the radar of the Church at the time, it feels very circumstantial vs the leading of the Holy Spirit in the Church to acknowledge/canonize a Saint. Or can we rest on the fact that if the Church has spoken on this matter, he is indeed a Saint, even if he may have had some problematic opinions?
I’m not educated on the topic. However, I don’t see why being a saint-a holy person-would be the same as being a perfect theologian.
So the Church (roughly speaking) condemns all forms of universalism but doesn’t dogmatize any eschatological vision.🙄
yes, the ecumenical councils create boundaries, but there are many things we just won't know till the eschaton. see the Book of Job for example.
Universalism isn’t condemned at Constantinople 553. We now know those canons weren’t original to that council. Norman Tanner’s critical edition doesn’t contain the anti- universalist canons.
If you read the Acts of the 5th council origen is not named once
Greetings David. Not sure if I would agree. Sounds good, but do we really get this from there? What did Origen write in his letter to "friends" in Alexandria?
"Some of those persons who take pleasure in accusing their neighbors bring, against us and our teaching, the charge of blasphemy; though, from us, they have never heard anything of the kind. Let them take heed to themselves how they refuse to mark that solemn warning, which says that “Revilers shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:10), when they declare that I hold that [satan,] the father of wickedness and perdition (that is, the devil), and of those who are cast forth from the kingdom of God are to be saved-a thing which no man can say, even if he has departed from his senses and is manifestly insane."
AT THE VERY BEST Origen believed that more will be saved than damned but EVERYONE SAVED? There is no evidence that he ever taught that, rather is this epistle an opposition. Or is it merely mistranslated? I would love to hear your explanation to justify your position.
Dr. Bradshaw is so good. His vast knowledge answers so many questions.
The argument that had the Church known of St. Isaac's writings he wouldn't have been canonized sounds similar to the argument that had the name of Origen not been added last moment to the list he wouldn't have been anathema. Both of these arguments sound like, "The Church got it wrong but I know the truth. I know that guy is a saint and that guy isn't but the Church doesn't know it."
Did origin castrate himself? Some in the church at the time say no, some say yes.
I am very glad to see people on Ancient Faith teaching against universalism
Yes, we made an effort when making the documentary on the ideas behind universal salvation to showcase both perspectives for it and against.
Sounds like you’re more interested in winning a political battle that in seeing souls saved.
I would love to see a neutral or universalist leaning historian debate this. A lot of what he said is just flat out false. God wants all saved, nothing is impossible for Him, and God can change any heart whenever He wants. No where does the Bible say we cannot be changed after death, and it says many times all will eventually be restored, the "restoration of all ".
Call me a schismatic but it's so sad that Origen was anathematized. If only he could be seen as a saint in the same sense as St. Augustine. Deeply flawed but still a holy man.
No, it's not tragic, nor is it unexpected. Origen is a thrice-condemned heretic. Sure he had some good writings, but his ideas are dangerous and spiritually destructive. The Holy Orthodox Church condemned him in multiple œcumenical councils. But by all means, if some among you following Ancient Faith seem to know more than the Church, and the bishops in those councils led by the Holy Spirit, then do correct them.
@@ahorton880thrice? What are you a whimsical British nanny or something?
@@ahorton880his aberrant teachings also carried over into heresies promulgated by his pupils such as Evagrius Ponticus and Didymus the Blind.
It’s impossible to read Origen without developing a deep respect for the man. So many of the ancient fathers loved him too.
I'm with you. Origen was unjustly condemned, assuming his condemnation actually happened, which I doubt.
If Adam means man, as such, and in the icon of Holy Resurrection shows Christ freeing Adam from Hell…
So sad to see you think Jesus was either a liar or a failure, and our father a cruel and abominable torturer. You don’t even believe the words he spoke. You believe he will be ‘All in Some’? You believe his love sometimes fails? You believe his mercies DO come to an end? That his wrath WILL last forever? You seem to love the teachings of man and not the very book you swear by.
There are a lot of verses that are very PROBLAMATIC for the Universalist viewpoint.
John 3:36 says, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, but the wrath of God abides on him.” NOTICE it does NOT say, "He will EVENTUALLY see eternal life...
Revelation 20:10 says, "The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." By the way, the beast (anti-christ) and the false prophet are NOT demons but men.
Revelation 14:9-11 says, "Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
Revelation 20:11-15 says, "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."
By the way, there is NOT one single verse that even hints that ANYONE thrown into the Lake of Fire will EVER be let out of said lake.
1Timothy 4:10 ...and we believe in the living God who is the savior of ALL men, especially for those who believe." Meaning: Salvation is offered to all men but is ONLY special to those who believe. Why? Again, John 3:36 says, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
So Origen was a gnostic, nice
Origen was definitely not a Gnostic.
Saint Gregory nor Saint Isaac were universalists. What a disgusting broadcast. Such slander.
You need to read more because you are misinformed
You obviously don't study
Why do you say that?
you're wrong. Read St Isaac homilies 48 and 51...
They were in fact both universalists. Most scholars agree that both of them held the eschatological view, and I would go as far as saying both of them were much more clearer than Origen and went further than Origen in some aspects.
St. Isaac of Nineveh's universalism is extremely evident in his last 3 homilies which puts the focus on eschatology. He affirms the finitude of hellfire in homily 39 (II) and absolutely affirms universalism in homily 40 (II) stating the following: "and it is clear that He does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, He is going to bring them to a single equal state of perfection."
For St. Gregory his universalism is just astonishingly evident and present in almost all of his major works, from the life of moses to the song of songs which was most likely one of if not his last work. But St. Gregory went even further than Origen in "On the Soul and the Resurrection" where he seems to affirm the salvation of the "inventor of evil", and in his "In Illud" he explicitly states that all will be saved, stating things such as: "For it is evident that God will in truth be all in all when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created being is at harmony with itself". What's also important to note is that St. Gregory undoubtedly held to the ontological non-subsistence of evil and that there will be a time when evil does not exist anymore, which is utterly incompatible with ECT. Overall, as most St. Gregory scholars have noted, the question is not even open as the cumulative case and his overall broader vision seen throughout all his writings is so strongly universalistic that it far outweighs the obviously rhetorical statements regarding Judas.