Universalism

[Turgonian]

Attention: No discussion about the truth or untruth of universalism in this thread

I just read that in the early church, the belief was widespread that everyone would be saved, and only afterwards (say, from the fifth century onwards) the doctrine of eternal Hell became popular, partly to keep the populace in fear. In fact it was claimed that in early times, there were six schools, four of which taught universalism; and of the remaining two, one taught annihilationism. Does anybody know if this is true?

[Turgonian]

They have a list of universalists (http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalist.html) here, including the prophets, Jesus Christ, Paul, John, Pantaenus, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom.

I smell a rat, I think... With so many people studying the Church Fathers, how come so many miss the universalism? Are these people trying to read things into the text which might be better interpreted another way?

[Amazing Rando]

Attention: No discussion about the truth or untruth of universalism in this thread

I just read that in the early church, the belief was widespread that everyone would be saved, and only afterwards (say, from the fifth century onwards) the doctrine of eternal Hell became popular, partly to keep the populace in fear. In fact it was claimed that in early times, there were six schools, four of which taught universalism; and of the remaining two, one taught annihilationism. Does anybody know if this is true?

The only Church Father I'm aware of who definitely believed in a form of universalist doctrine is Origen. Origen believed that because of the goodness of God, it was inevitable that even the devil himself would be saved.

[Turgonian]

That last post was...profound...

[Amazing Rando]

:lol: :smile: :sigh: :tongue: :eek: :eek: :eek: :teeth: :pray: :blush: :lol: :sigh: :smile: :eek: :eek: :wink: :blush: :lol: :sigh: :smile: :sigh: :sigh: :teeth: :blush:

What in the heck? I didn't post that...

:hrm:

[Turgonian]

:huh:

[FreezBee]

They have a list of universalists (http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalist.html) here, including the prophets, Jesus Christ, Paul, John, Pantaenus, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom.

I smell a rat, I think... With so many people studying the Church Fathers, how come so many miss the universalism? Are these people trying to read things into the text which might be better interpreted another way?

Hmmm, dunno; but if you want to read some arguments for Universalism in the Early Church, this paper should accommodate you: Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html) by J.W. Hanson.

Said paper begins with this:

[cite=J.W. Hanson]The surviving writings of the Christian Fathers, of the first four or five centuries of the Christian Era, abound in evidences of the prevalence of the doctrine of universal salvation during those years. This important fact in the history of Christian eschatology was first brought out prominently in a volume, very valuable, and for its time very thorough: Hosea Ballou's "Ancient History of Universalism," (Boston, 1828, 1842, 1872). Dr. Ballou's work has well been called "light in a dark place," but the quotations he makes are but a fraction of what subsequent researches have discovered. [/QUOTE]

So, the interest in Universalism isn't something entirely new :smile:


- Freezbee

[Turgonian]

Do you have anti-stuff too, establishing that the early fathers didn't hold to Universalism?

[Amazing Rando]

Origen was a universalist for sure. The others... not so much.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Gregory of Nyssa was unambiguously a universalist. There is no dispute about that. Clement and Origen also. Apart from these three, there was no other writer who was clearly a universalist in the early period (though no doubt universalists will argue that there were, based on exegesis of what they said).

But Gregory of Nyssa, Clement and Origen, everyone grants, even the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology:

"Gregory's debt to Origen is visible in his universalist belief in the salvation of all things (apokatastasis), although he rejected Origen's view of the soul's preexistence" (p. 487, Gregory of Nyssa entry).

[Heartablaze]

Jesus could not be a universalist according to his own harsh words. Read through the gospel of Matthew. And John 14.
As for the prophets, I was recently reading Jeremiah, and this is what he says: Jeremiah 7:8-15 This is not universalist. How can one say that the prophets are universalist?

[Symeon]

I engaged in a brief argument about Universalism in the early church on an Orthodox forum. Most of the quotes used to support the view that Universalism was a widely held belief among the early Church Fathers are quite out of context. A good corrective to the tentmakers.com material is this lengthy series of articles from R. Grant Jones, a Western Rite Orthodox Christian, which can be accessed here (http://web.archive.org/web/20011119160207/www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/damnation.htm). Also of interest is this (http://www.bible.ca/H-hell.htm) collection of quotes.

That St. Gregory of Nyssa was not a Universalist can be deduced from the following quotation: "When you hear the word fire, you have been taught to think of a fire other than the fire we see, owing to something being added to that fire which is not in this. The fire which man will experience in the next life will be different from the fire of the present life. The fire of this life is extinguished in various ways, whereas the fire of the next life remains unextinguished. That fire, therefore, is something other than this." More on St. Gregory may be read in Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos' book Life After Death, the relevant chapter of which is here (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.08.htm).

[Rusty T]

whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments; which punishments, when they had been foretold by the prophets, the later-born poets and philosophers stole from the holy Scriptures, to make their doctrines worthy of credit. Yet these also have spoken beforehand of the punishments that are to light upon the profane and unbelieving, in order that none be left without a witness, or be able to say, "We have not heard, neither have we known." But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and they will make your way plainer for escaping the eternal punishments, and obtaining the eternal prizes of God.

And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, ye can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by fire.

For everywhere, whoever is corrected by father, or neighbour, or child, or friend, or brother, or husband, or wife, for a fault, for being hard to move, for loving pleasure and being hard to urge to what is right (except those who have been persuaded that the unjust and

Inasmuch, then, as in both Testaments there is the same righteousness of God [displayed] when God takes vengeance, in the one case indeed typically, temporarily, and more moderately; but in the other, really, enduringly, and more rigidly: for the fire is eternal, and the wrath of God which shall be revealed from heaven from the face of our Lord (as David also says, “But the face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth”), entails a heavier punishment on those who incur it,—the elders pointed out that those men are devoid of sense, who, [arguing] from what happened to those who formerly did not obey God, do endeavour to bring in another Father, setting over against [these punishments] what great things the Lord had done at His coming to save those who received Him, taking compassion upon them; while they keep silence with regard to His judgment; and all those things which shall come upon such as have heard His words, but done them not, and that it were better for them if they had not been born, and that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the judgment than for that city which did not receive the word of His disciples.

A fearful thing is sin, and the sorest disease of the soul is transgression, secretly cutting its sinews, and becoming also the cause of eternal fire; an evil of a man’s own choosing, an offspring of the will.

We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: for if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with Angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed.

These are just a few of the dozens and dozens of references I found in the Fathers of the Church to eternal punishment. Not sure if that helps.

rusty

[Rusty T]

sorry, one of my quotes is screwy. you get the picture

[Turgonian]

Thanks a lot! :thumb:

[Rupert Pupkin]

That St. Gregory of Nyssa was not a Universalist can be deduced from the following quotation: "When you hear the word fire, you have been taught to think of a fire other than the fire we see, owing to something being added to that fire which is not in this. The fire which man will experience in the next life will be different from the fire of the present life. The fire of this life is extinguished in various ways, whereas the fire of the next life remains unextinguished. That fire, therefore, is something other than this." More on St. Gregory may be read in Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos' book Life After Death, the relevant chapter of which is here.

While I agree with you that universalists often quote the Fathers out of context, you have done the same thing to Gregory of Nyssa here. I haven't got time to chase down quotes now, but pretty much every scholar, from conservative evangelical, to Catholic, to orthodox, acknowledges that he was a universalist. Indeed, the quote I posted was from W.C. Weinrich, "Gregory of Nyssa", Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. W.A. Elwell, Baker, 1984, 487. Weinrich is (or was) Associate Professor of Early Church History and Patristic Studies, Concordia Theological Seminary, and is an evangelical who believes in eternal torment for the wicked, so has no axe to grind.

As I say, I couldn't be bothered searching for quotes in the original sources - my reading of Gregory of Nyssa has been confined to issues related to the trinity - but given that everybody says that he was a universalist, including evangelical professors of Patristic Studies, I suspect that they are more likely to be correct about the subject than you.

In any case, the quote you give is quite ambiguous - whatever saying the fire of the next life cannot be extinguished is meant to imply, might be any number of things, and does not in any way entail that he was not a universalist. So you are reading your view into the text.

In short, two wrongs don't make a right. Don't misquote the fathers just because others do. If you want to claim, contrary to all the scholars, that Gregory was not a universalist, then you are going to have to present some better quotes than that one.

NOTE ADDED LATER:

I've just consulted Louis Berkhof's influential History of Christian Doctrines, and not only does it confirm this (and Berkhof was a conservative Calvinist), but if what he says is true, then it demonstrates that Symeon has simply not read Gregory of Nyssa on the subject at all. Berkhof writes:


His younger brother, Gregory of Nyssa, is of far greater importance as the author of the second important systematic treatment on the work of Christ, the Great Catechism. He repeats the idea of the deceit practised on Satan, and justifies the deceit on two grounds: (a) the deceiver simply received his due when he was deceived in turn; and (b) Satan himself benefits by it in the end, since it results in his salvation.

Berkhof, L. 1937, The History of Christian Doctrines, Baker, 167.

So not only was Gregory of Nyssa a universalist, but he also taught quite explicitly that Satan himself would even be saved.

I think this illustrates something very important. This is why you cannot trust apologists, whether for or against universalism or any other doctrine. People with vested interests always see what they want to see. Symeon doens't want Gregory of Nyssa to be a universalist, so he finds an ambiguous passage and bases his claim on that, ignoring everything else Gregory wrote. Exponents of universalism do the same thing in reverse. THIS IS WHY I HATE APOLOGETICS. Kierkegaard was right; the second Judas Iscariot was the first person who decided to defend Christianity by means of apologetics.

Go to the scholars, not the apologists.

[Symeon]

While I agree with you that universalists often quote the Fathers out of context, you have done the same thing to Gregory of Nyssa here. I haven't got time to chase down quotes now, but pretty much every scholar, from conservative evangelical, to Catholic, to orthodox, acknowledges that he was a universalist. Indeed, the quote I posted was from W.C. Weinrich, "Gregory of Nyssa", Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. W.A. Elwell, Baker, 1984, 487. Weinrich is (or was) Associate Professor of Early Church History and Patristic Studies, Concordia Theological Seminary, and is an evangelical who believes in eternal torment for the wicked, so has no axe to grind.

As I say, I couldn't be bothered searching for quotes in the original sources - my reading of Gregory of Nyssa has been confined to issues related to the trinity - but given that everybody says that he was a universalist, including evangelical professors of Patristic Studies, I suspect that they are more likely to be correct about the subject than you.

In any case, the quote you give is quite ambiguous - whatever saying the fire of the next life cannot be extinguished is meant to imply, might be any number of things, and does not in any way entail that he was not a universalist. So you are reading your view into the text.

In short, two wrongs don't make a right. Don't misquote the fathers just because others do. If you want to claim, contrary to all the scholars, that Gregory was not a universalist, then you are going to have to present some better quotes than that one.

NOTE ADDED LATER:

I've just consulted Louis Berkhof's influential History of Christian Doctrines, and not only does it confirm this (and Berkhof was a conservative Calvinist), but if what he says is true, then it demonstrates that Symeon has simply not read Gregory of Nyssa on the subject at all. Berkhof writes:



Berkhof, L. 1937, The History of Christian Doctrines, Baker, 167.

So not only was Gregory of Nyssa a universalist, but he also taught quite explicitly that Satan himself would even be saved.

I think this illustrates something very important. This is why you cannot trust apologists, whether for or against universalism or any other doctrine. People with vested interests always see what they want to see. Symeon doens't want Gregory of Nyssa to be a universalist, so he finds an ambiguous passage and bases his claim on that, ignoring everything else Gregory wrote. Exponents of universalism do the same thing in reverse. THIS IS WHY I HATE APOLOGETICS. Kierkegaard was right; the second Judas Iscariot was the first person who decided to defend Christianity by means of apologetics.

Go to the scholars, not the apologists.

I have no problem with the idea of St. Gregory of Nyssa being a Universalist, as he would not be the only Church Father to have made a theological error (Sts. Irenaeus and Justin Martyr's endorsement of Chiliasm comes to mind). However, I think Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos makes a good case for St. Gregory of Nyssa's orthodoxy in this matter. His reading of St. Gregory of Nyssa is also supported by the readings of St. Maximos the Confessor and Mark of Ephesus. I linked to the relevant chapter earlier, where the language about the salvation of all (and yes, also of the devil), is explained.

[Rusty T]

A good article about the topic at hand is here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

[Turgonian]

Kierkegaard was right; the second Judas Iscariot was the first person who decided to defend Christianity by means of apologetics.
A very silly statement. We aren't all fideists. Go tell J.P. Holding to his face that 'he who defends [Christianity] has never believed in it'. It's true that we should search for the truth, and that the 'apology of holiness' is probably the best argument for Christianity; but that doesn't invalidate research.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I have no problem with the idea of St. Gregory of Nyssa being a Universalist, as he would not be the only Church Father to have made a theological error

He clearly was a universalist, as all experts in the field agree. But this proves three things:

(a) As usual, there is no consensus amongst the Church Fathers on matters of doctrine, contrary to what Catholic and Orthodox apologists sometimes maintain.

(b) The fact that three major fathers (Clement, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa) were universalists, shows that it was a significant minority opinion within orthodoxy.

(c) The fact that Gregory of Nyssa was a highly respected and influential theologian, and was never condemned by anyone for his universalism, not even later, shows that universalism was regarded as an acceptable, orthodox theological opinion, even if not the majority one, in the Eastern, Greek-speaking Church at least.

One final point. We need to remember that the canon of scripture was not fully established at this time. Indeed, the Council of Laodicea, which met in 364 AD, specifically excluded the book of Revelation from the canon. Without the book of Revelation, universalism becomes quite a bit easier to defend. Differences in the canon accepted by these Fathers may play a role in such differences in doctrine.


A very silly statement. We aren't all fideists. Go tell J.P. Holding to his face that 'he who defends [Christianity] has never believed in it'. It's true that we should search for the truth, and that the 'apology of holiness' is probably the best argument for Christianity; but that doesn't invalidate research.

An extremely silly statement. I have never had any interaction of any kind with JP Holding - I have only heard of him second hand - but I would be more than happy to tell him to his face that his view is directly contrary to scripture and irrational to boot, from what I have heard of it. I am more than happy to debate the subject with him on TWeb. I am currently engaged in a debate over hermeneutics which touches on some of these issues, but it would be my pleasure to debate anyone on this subject say late August, early September, when the dust from the current debate has settled.

In the meantime, you might get a feel for my position from reading the current debate on TWeb (note: I have submitted the last part of my exposition but it hasn't been moderated or appeared yet, but is fairly crucial for an accurate overall understanding of what I am saying - I expect it to appear in the next couple of days):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=98798

But if you can contact JP Holding, and invite him to debate this subject with me, please by all means do. Then we might see which position is really taught in God's Word. I can assure you, I have studied these subjects extensively (see my web page for my educational background) - including doing a subject in Christian apologetics run by someone who is a prominent evidentialist apologist in my country, and who has published quite a few books on evidence for the resurrection etc - and gone to a lot of trouble to read and listen to those who hold JP Holding's kind of view, and it has convinced me all the more that their view is profoundly un-Biblical and philosophically and evidentially ludicrous.

[Turgonian]

I'll tell him.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Someone sent me a PM and asked if I could explain my comments re apologetics and JP Holding, and I said that I would post in this thread to answer their questions. But if a debate develops out of this I think we should split to another thread, because it has essentially nothing to do with universalism.

The PMer asked how my worldview differed from that of Holding, and why I called his worldview "ludicrous". My criticism, however, was not directed at Holding's "worldview", since, as we are both Christians, I would say there would be a significant amount in common in that regard. It was with respect to his evidentialist stance with respect to apologetics that my comments were directed.

I will just be brief here. If a debate ensues then I shall elaborate. Turgonian called me a fideist, and that is both somewhat accurate but also misleading. The problem is that there are at least two distinct species of fideists. A much more precise label for my position is subjectivist/mystic. I believe that Christian faith is grounded in a mystical encounter with Christ through the activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. That is the epistemic ground for our faith. In a sense, one might want to call subjective mystical encounter a form of evidence, but if so, it is a kind of evidence only accessible to those who have received it. Now I do believe that this mystical encounter is facilitated by faith, and hence it is somewhat accurate - but only somewhat - to call me a fideist. But the problem with that term is that for a mystic like myself, faith is only something which the Holy Spirit responds to in mystical encounter, and it is that mystical encounter which is the grounds of faith. The object of our faith is the one whom we encounter mystically.

My objection to JP Holding, is to the idea that specifically Christian religious claims (such as that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, died and rose again, the Bible is God's revelation, that kind of thing) can be established by means of empirical evidence. I emphatically deny that they can, and I assert that it was God's definite purpose and plan to ensure that empirical evidence would not be able to demonstrate these claims. God chose to hide himself, and his activity in the world is only visible to the eye of faith (the divine incognito). My objections to evidential apologetics as espoused by Holding and many evangelicals are:

(a) It is directly contrary to scriptural teaching about the nature of divine self-disclosure.
(b) The historical arguments employed by such apologists are obscurantist, wrong, and biased, and fail to honestly engage with modern scholarship, and what we know - let me repeat that word, know - about the history of early Christianity and the Biblical texts. Any reasonably objective person who assesses the evidence in a thorough fashion would have to conclude that there is insufficient grounds to establish the resurrection of Christ, the Bible as God's revelation, or any other specifically Christian claim. In short, what Mormons are to Egyptology, JP Holding is to Biblical Studies.
(c) It is philosophically confused about the metaphysics and semantics of divine revelation. A purely propositional revelation could not disclose the divine, without mystical apprehension of the concepts involved.

An important word needs to be sounded about natural theology here. I have no problems with natural theology (indeed, I think it is capable of achieving more than most Evangelicals would believe). I would, as an aside, differ fairly radically from Holding with respect to which natural theological arguments were valid and which are not. But that is not a significant point; apologists like Holding disagree amongst themselves concerning such matters. My major disagreement with these apologists regarding natural theology concerns their assumption that the term "natural theology" is essentially synonymous with "general revelation". General revelation and natural theology are two completely different things. Apologists like Holding invariably confuse them, just as, being Evangelicals, they also confuse the human and divine meanings of scripture. The relationship between natural theology and "general revelation" is precisely analogous to the relationship between these two senses of scripture. Natural theology cannot save. However, when a person responds in faith to the knowledge that they have received by means of natural theology, then the Holy Spirit can provide them with mystical illumination, which is what "general revelation" consists in. It is only through this mystical encounter that those who have never heard the gospel can be saved. No-one can be saved through natural theology.

I think that apologists of this kind cause, in the long term, major damage to the Christian faith. I know that people say that Evangelicalism is growing faster than other segments of Christianity, and therefore that must somehow validate it. Leaving aside arguments like whether Protestant movements in places like South America are properly classed as "Evangelical" (as opposed to, say, "Pentecostal"), the claim itself is fundamentally flawed. The fastest growing religion in the world today, so far as I am aware, is Mormonism. There are many Mormon apologetics websites, books, and so forth. But anyone who reads them who has a good education in the relevant disciplines knows that they are completely stupid, and no-one, except the most biased Mormon, who was honest and educated could find them in any way even slightly credible. Yet Mormonism continues to grow at an astounding pace, and these websites convince many. I am suggesting that Evangelical apologetics sites are no different. They are completely biased, unscholarly, and that is obvious to anyone who has studied the relevant fields. In the short term, Evangelicalism may grow. But in the longer term it will die, because it is becoming an essentially anti-intellectual backwater movement.

God himself has ensured that the evidence for Christianity is unconvincing. In we distort the evidence to try and support it, we are both unscholarly and also attempting to subvert his plan of salvation. God wants to be known through mystical encounter, not history lessons. By presenting palpably inadequate arguments to persuade unbelievers, the apologist does unwittingly become, as Kierkegaard claims, "Judas no. 2".

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

well ... thanks for the response Rupert but I completely disagree with you, and yes - maybe we should split this off into another thread. I'd need time to sort out the stuff you've said in your post to expand on my disagreement.

Specifically, I'd like to interact with this:


The historical arguments employed by such apologists are obscurantist, wrong, and biased, and fail to honestly engage with modern scholarship, and what we know - let me repeat that word, know - about the history of early Christianity and the Biblical texts. Any reasonably objective person who assesses the evidence in a thorough fashion would have to conclude that there is insufficient grounds to establish the resurrection of Christ, the Bible as God's revelation, or any other specifically Christian claim. In short, what Mormons are to Egyptology, JP Holding is to Biblical Studies.

Which modern scholarship are you referring to please? I don't know if you're aware but JPH has written a book on the Mormons and to compare him to them is itself ludicrous.

If evidence for the Christian faith is insufficient, then what was the point in the apostles appeal to the resurrection, which they did frequently in the book of Acts?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Thanks LPOT.

I have to go to bed now, but tomorrow I'll start a separate thread - maybe in the Apologetics 301 forum, I don't know where's most appropriate - and answer your questions. I don't want to derail this thread from the historical issues related to universalism. I'll post here briefly to let you know when I've started the other thread.

God bless,

RP.

[jpholding]

Thanks LPOT.

I have to go to bed now, but tomorrow I'll start a separate thread - maybe in the Apologetics 301 forum, I don't know where's most appropriate

MY area, Puppy Boy.

I've started a thread JUST 4 U. :kiss:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=99474

"Christians" like you are sickening to the umpteenth degree. Come on by -- we always love the laughs we get from the pompous who are incompetent and unaware of it. :lol:

[Rupert Pupkin]

MY area, Puppy Boy.

"Christians" like you are sickening to the umpteenth degree. Come on by -- we always love the laughs we get from the pompous who are incompetent and unaware of it.

I'll come by later tonight, after I've played with my toy bone for a while.

[Rusty T]

I'll come by later tonight, after I've played with my toy bone for a while.:grin:
:bonk:

bad rusty


:outtie:

[Aidios]

Regarding Hanson's book, I can't say I've checked his specific claims, but he's very far from being an objective scholar. (He also takes a jab at the deity of Christ by citing a passage from Origen, if I recall correctly.) The Tentmaker list seems biased to me as well.

Hosea Ballou (not the ultra-universalist, but his grandnephew) wrote a somewhat more balanced book (http://books.google.com/books?id=oTLbPYui8aEC&printsec=titlepage) on the same subject, and Edward Beecher wrote his History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Retribution/DoctrineOfRetribution.html); either of them would be preferable in my opinion. I agree that universalists were probably a significant, accepted minority in the early church, and that there are people who have greatly exaggerated their cases on both sides.

[Geoffrey]

As an Ultra-Universalist of the Hosea Ballou (1771-1852) stripe, I admit with regret that I think we have only three major voices in the ancient Orthodox Catholic Church that taught Universalism:

1. Clement of Alexandria
2. Origen (who was posthumously condemned by the Church)
3. Gregory of Nyssa

[PatristicArcana]

As an Ultra-Universalist of the Hosea Ballou (1771-1852) stripe, I admit with regret that I think we have only three major voices in the ancient Orthodox Catholic Church that taught Universalism:

1. Clement of Alexandria
2. Origen (who was posthumously condemned by the Church)
3. Gregory of Nyssa

Clement of Alexandria's statements to this effect are sufficiently nebulous as to prevent any certainty on the matter.

Origen speculatively entertained the doctrine of universal reconciliation (not to be confused with universal salvation), but was not dogmatic on this point.

My studies rarely extend to Gregory of Nyssa, and thus I would not know what his stance on the position is.

[BigBen]

Another quote that I remember is from a Scottish novelist and ex-preacher named George Macdonald. C.S. Lewis referred to Macdonald as his "master", and Macdonald was a Universalist. Anyways, an interesting quote of his...
Nothing is inexorable but love. Love which will yield to prayer is imperfect and poor. Nor is it then the love that yields, but its alloy. For if at the voice of entreaty love conquers displeasure, it is love asserting itself, not love yielding its claims. It is not love that grants a boon unwillingly; still less is it love that answers a prayer to the wrong and hurt of him who prays. Love is one, and love is changeless.

For love loves unto purity. Love has ever in view the absolute loveliness of that which it beholds. Where loveliness is incomplete, and love cannot love its fill of loving, it spends itself to make more lovely, that it may love more; it strives for perfection, even that itself may be perfected--not in itself, but in the object. As it was love that first created humanity, so even human love, in proportion to its divinity, will go on creating the beautiful for its own outpouring. There is nothing eternal but that which loves and can be loved, and love is ever climbing towards the consummation when such shall be the universe, imperishable, divine.

Therefore all that is not beautiful in the beloved, all that comes between and is not of love's kind, must be destroyed.

And our God is a consuming fire.

Taken from: http://www.online-literature.com/george-macdonald/unspoken-sermons/2/

[MortalCoil]

Origen was a universalist for sure. The others... not so much.



Origen also did not believe in the incarnation of Christ and he taught that Christ is subordinate to God.

Are we to conclude that we have these doctrinal points wrong as well?

[One Bad Pig]

Origen also did not believe in the incarnation of Christ and he taught that Christ is subordinate to God.
Could you provide cites for these? I haven't gotten to Origen yet (still working my way through Irenaeus).

[MortalCoil]

Could you provide cites for these? I haven't gotten to Origen yet (still working my way through Irenaeus).



sorry, I cannot provide a specific citation but I learned a lot from listening to the following seminary courses.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/category/courses/a/series/history_of_christianity_i/

Origen is discussed in the " Greek Apologists and Early Theologians" sections.


There is also a specific class on Origen here:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/search/a/origen


I'm fairly new when it comes to church history so I think you are ahead of me on the subject but I will be purchasing a book called Getting to Know the Early Church Fathers which I feel will really be a fine introduction to a person in my position.

http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/5446/nm/Getting_to_Know_the_Church_Fathers_An_Evangelical_Introduction_Paperback_/parent_id/69

Hope this helps.