Christian: Apocatastasis/Universalism

[lunamoth]

Apocatastasis is the doctrine that all good and evil will ultimately end up in harmony with God and is related to the universalist teaching that all will be saved. An easy to read overview of this is found at wiki, and includes this intro:

In Christianity, apocatastasis is the doctrine of the ultimate reconciliation of good and evil. Apocatastasis maintains that all moral creatures -- angels, humans and devils -- will eventually come to a harmony in God's kingdom. It is based on the Biblical passage in 1 Corinthians 15:28 and was extensively preached in the Eastern church by St. Gregory of Nyssa and in the Western church by Ambrose of Milan and Gregory of Naziansus in the 4th century. Jerome (347-420) initially believed but then recanted and Basil the Great (330-379), who opposed the doctrine, wrote that the majority of Christians believed.
The belief was first articulated and defended by Origen of Alexandria (185-232) and Clement of Alexandria (?-215), two theologians who were schooled and steeped in Hellenistic philosophy and familiar with Gnostic and Mystery Cult writings. They freely adapted neo-Platonic terminology and ideas to Christianity while explaining and differentiating the new faith from all the others. [8] [9]. Some scholars credit Origen's On First Principles as the first Christian systematic theological work.[10] It contained key concepts of the Trinity and Free Will as well as Apocatastasis.
A little more than a century later, another systematic theologian, Augustine of Hippo (354-386), focused on a different part of the bible and formulated what later developed into the doctrine of double predestination, which is the belief that some people are predestined for salvation and some people are predestined for damnation. [11] Constantinople 543 condemned Apocatastasis and the Anathema was formally submitted to the Fifth Ecumenical Synod of Constantinople (553). However, Origen's other theology about transmigration of souls and the possibility of glorified man falling again to restart the cycle played a role.[9] The Anathema against apocatastasis, or more accurately, against the belief that hell is not eternal, was not ratified despite support from the Emperor, and it is absent from the Anathemas spoken against Origen at Constantinople II.
Apocatastasis almost disappeared from Christian thought despite some respected theologians such as Maximus the Confessor, Scotus Erigena, Amalric of Bena and Hans Denk who continued to believe in the doctrine then generally considered heterodox by the Western Church. The belief became more public during the Protestant Reformation when all Catholic doctrines and practices were called into question, causing Adolf von Harnack, church historian, to state that nearly all Reformers were "apocatastatists at heart".[12]
However, it should be noted that certain small groups who claimed to have preceded the Protestant Reformation, such as the early Anabaptists and Sabbatarian Church of God groups, did teach a form of apocatastasis and were condemned by the Latin and later Reformation churches. Groups, such as the Living Church of God, which claim the Sabbatarian Anabaptists as ancestors, still teach that God will raise the dead and later call everyone who was not called in this age and that nearly everyone will ultimately accept that calling.
A related belief is Universalism, which is the doctrine that all human beings will be saved from eternal damnation or annihilation in hell.

I favor this doctrine because first of all I could not personally reconcile the idea of a loving Creator, a Creator Who is Love, with the idea that any of his creatures could be put in some kind of eternal punishment, even the punishment of exile from God. Second, it does not make sense to me that there could be a 'heaven' for some if anyone was left in torment apart from God.

Third, in the Bible, things like Christ forgiving those who are crucifying Him...if they are forgiven...who would not be? And then passages like this from Romans:

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I know many interpret this to mean just all 'believers,' but I really don't see why that must be so.

14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. (2 Corinthians 5)

Finally, as also pointed out in the Wiki article, the great themes of the Bible are those of exile and return, redemption and restoration from cataclysmic fall. The Prodigal Son writ large.

Grace is grace, by definition unmerited by anything we can do or think. The absolute freeness of grace, ushered into our world by Christ on the Cross, is exactly what redeems the world.

 

[lunamoth]

Oh yeah...why I put this in debate!

This doctrine was rejected by St. Augustine and has never been part of Catholic Doctrine. I'm not sure what the Eastern Orthodox Church thinks about this. I think it's pretty interesting that it was a widely held belief among the early Protestant Churches (i.e., Anabaptists), especially considering how very opposite most of the Protestant churches are from this doctrine today.

What do you all think?

 

[James the Persian]

Oh yeah...why I put this in debate!

This doctrine was rejected by St. Augustine and has never been part of Catholic Doctrine. I'm not sure what the Eastern Orthodox Church thinks about this. I think it's pretty interesting that it was a widely held belief among the early Protestant Churches (i.e., Anabaptists), especially considering how very opposite most of the Protestant churches are from this doctrine today.

What do you all think?

Apokatastasis (never seen it with a 'c' before and as it's a Greek word, 'k' would certainly be more normal) is a condemned heresy because it denies free will (your source is also rather misleading about St. Gregory of Nyssa as had he done what it suggests he would be an anathematised heretic rather than a saint). We can, as St. Gregory did, hope that all will be saved - in fact this is precisely my position - but we cannot say with absolute certainty that all will be saved as that would mean that God must be willing to compel those who would otherwise wish to reject Him. Now, my position, which is a perfectly acceptable theologoumenon in the Orthodox Church, is near enough to apokatastasis that it makes very little difference but the difference it does make is crucial. I hope, and think, that all will be saved because I know that God wills that all be saved but I also allow for the possibility that some might continue to reject Him, as difficult as I find that to imagine, and that in such circumstances God will allow them to do so. God, however, will not damn anyone. It's not quite apokatastasis, and it's not a universal belief in my Church,but I would rather err on the side of love and I'm in good company with saints like St. Gregory and St. Isaac the Syrian who even prayed for the salvation of Satan and the demons.

James

 

[lunamoth]

Apokatastasis (never seen it with a 'c' before and as it's a Greek word, 'k' would certainly be more normal) is a condemned heresy because it denies free will (your source is also rather misleading about St. Gregory of Nyssa as had he done what it suggests he would be an anathematised heretic rather than a saint). We can, as St. Gregory did, hope that all will be saved - in fact this is precisely my position - but we cannot say with absolute certainty that all will be saved as that would mean that God must be willing to compel those who would otherwise wish to reject Him. Now, my position, which is a perfectly acceptable theologoumenon in the Orthodox Church, is near enough to apokatastasis that it makes very little difference but the difference it does make is crucial. I hope, and think, that all will be saved because I know that God wills that all be saved but I also allow for the possibility that some might continue to reject Him, as difficult as I find that to imagine, and that in such circumstances God will allow them to do so. God, however, will not damn anyone. It's not quite apokatastasis, and it's not a universal belief in my Church,but I would rather err on the side of love and I'm in good company with saints like St. Gregory and St. Isaac the Syrian who even prayed for the salvation of Satan and the demons.

James

Thank you for the reply James and I think that the distinction you make is a good one (actually from the article I got that St. Gregory made this distinction as well). I don't have strong feelings either way, although for aesthetic and Biblical reasons I lean toward the idea that in the fullness of time all will succumb to God's love. Aesthetic because we started in Harmony, it seems that the end should also end up in Harmony/Unity/Love. That also represents to me a complete 'victory.' But, this is nothing I feel pressed about. Free will is perhaps a spectrum in itself where when we finally merge with God our will is so perfectly aligned with His that there is no longer a distinction.

Finally, above all I agree with the line of yours that I underlined above. I think that taking that into our hearts will have a significant effect on how we relate to each other. Likewise, it neutralizes the traps of fear and desire discussed here.

2 c,
luna

 

[James the Persian]

Thank you for the reply James and I think that the distinction you make is a good one (actually from the article I got that St. Gregory made this distinction as well).

He did make the distinction and he didn't preach his ideas but ofered them up as his opinion - which is why he's a Church Father rather than a heresiarch.

I don't have strong feelings either way, although for aesthetic and Biblical reasons I lean toward the idea that in the fullness of time all will succumb to God's love. Aesthetic because we started in Harmony, it seems that the end should also end up in Harmony/Unity/Love. That also represents to me a complete 'victory.' But, this is nothing I feel pressed about.

I don't think our views are that dissimilar. If all come to love God then all will be saved. So long as you do not believe that God will force us to love Him then your view is loving hope that all might be saved rather than apokatastasis as such. I don't much care about aesthetics when it comes to theology, though. Something can be right and ugly or beautiful and wrong.

Free will is perhaps a spectrum in itself where when we finally merge with God our will is so perfectly aligned with His that there is no longer a distinction.

I don't believe that we ever will merge with God, though we will be in His presence - the idea that we will ever be more than 'like God' is definitely not part of Tradition. There will, and indeed must, always be a distinction between Creator and creation.

Finally, above all I agree with the line of yours that I underlined above. I think that taking that into our hearts will have a significant effect on how we relate to each other. Likewise, it neutralizes the traps of fear and desire discussed in the OP.

Well I think that that is the major point of my personal belief. There are a number of theologoumena that are compatible with Orthodox belief and I find this to be the most loving. I would much rather spend my life believing in a God who will forgive all and damn nobody than point fingers at all those 'on the road to hell'. In any case, I need to concentrate on my own sins, not those of other people.

James

 

[lunamoth]

I don't think our views are that dissimilar. If all come to love God then all will be saved. So long as you do not believe that God will force us to love Him then your view is loving hope that all might be saved rather than apokatastasis as such. I don't much care about aesthetics when it comes to theology, though. Something can be right and ugly or beautiful and wrong.

I don't think God forces anyone to do anything, so I like that phrase "loving hope." As for aesthetics my thought was not so much about beautry vs. ugly, but more like the idea of wholeness and completion, if that makes any sense.

I don't believe that we ever will merge with God, though we will be in His presence - the idea that we will ever be more than 'like God' is definitely not part of Tradition. There will, and indeed must, always be a distinction between Creator and creation.

I use the phrase 'merge with God' to represent our complete immersion in His will and perfection. Because resurrection implies that we will remain individual persons in some sense, and have some kind of body (and I think these two things are intimately related, two sides of a coin), then in some sense yes we will remain distinct from our Creator. I find this a strange notion but I am content to be uncertain about it, call it Mystery, as it strikes me to be very much like the Trinity (One God in Three Persons).

Well I think that that is the major point of my personal belief. There are a number of theologoumena that are compatible with Orthodox belief and I find this to be the most loving. I would much rather spend my life believing in a God who will forgive all and damn nobody than point fingers at all those 'on the road to hell'. In any case, I need to concentrate on my own sins, not those of other people.

James

In this we are in complete agreement. :yes:

Thank you for your replies.

 

[lunamoth]

I don't believe that we ever will merge with God, though we will be in His presence - the idea that we will ever be more than 'like God' is definitely not part of Tradition. There will, and indeed must, always be a distinction between Creator and creation.

Actually, I just looked up theosis:

Theosis, meaning deification or divinization, is the process of man becoming holy and being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection. Theosis is the understanding that humans from the beginning are made to share in the life of the Trinity. Therefore, we are saved from sin for participation in the life of the Trinity, which is life-giving and therefore eternal.

This is very much how I view "salvation."

 

[James the Persian]

Actually, I just looked up theosis:

Theosis, meaning deification or divinization, is the process of man becoming holy and being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection. Theosis is the understanding that humans from the beginning are made to share in the life of the Trinity. Therefore, we are saved from sin for participation in the life of the Trinity, which is life-giving and therefore eternal.

This is very much how I view "salvation."

Hey, I'm Orthodox. For us, savation and Theosis are one and the same. There is no merging with God, however. Now, from your clarification I can see that what you meant by 'merge with God' was not what I assumed you meant but that gave me the idea of the Hindu concept of merging with God after death which is why I stated that i opposed it. We will always remain indivisuals but our sharing the human essence with Christ Who shares the Divine essence with the Father and Holy Spirit does indeed mean that by grace we can participate in the life of the Trinity and, through doing so, become ever more perfect (Theosis is an eternal progression with no end point, which is another thing I feel is very important to point out).

James