Can an Eastern Orthodox believe in universal redemption, or that no one goes to hell?

[Gorgias]

Please inform us of the hermeneutic you used to arrive at your non-odd interpretation of this parable.

Easy. Each group answered as a group, not as individuals. They didn’t say “when did I do X, and Y, and Z”. They said – as a group – “when did we do X, and Y, and Z”. So, it’s the group who did all of that, and not necessarily every member of the group.

It really is just the “plain words of the text.”

Glad I could help you understand that.

Again, enlighten us!

It really is the same question I just answered.

 

[Gorgias]

Obnoxious, uncharitable, condescending . . .

So good a comment that you had to post it twice?

The OP mentioned that he was having a hard time believing the doctrines on hell, and then went on to discuss Orthodox theology on the subject that he agrees with. When he asks “can an Orthodox Christian believe this?”, do you not see in that question “if I became an Orthodox Christian, could I believe this?”…? I do.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Probably still wasn’t the best thing to say in reply, though.

But anyway, I don’t reject Catholic teaching on hell. I’m just asking about the Eastern Orthodox and why someone like David Bentley Hart would feel he could promote such a view, if it wasn’t an acceptable one for Eastern Orthodoxy.

I could also ask if Eastern Catholicism of whatever stripe tends towards universalism. But of course, that would have to also relate to what is dogmatically binding on the Catholic Church as a whole.

And it is here where I’m also curious about Eastern Orthodox allowance, if the Catholic dogmatic nature on hell was decided in a pre-schism council, for example.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

And also it must be said, regards to my difficulties with hell ---- that it’s not that I want to reject hell because I find it hard to believe in God’s goodness, or some common objection. It’s rather that I can’t intellectually grasp how someone could sin such that he truly would deserve hell — on Thomistic Catholicism’s own terms. That is, I’m struggling to understand the nature of sin, especially when it seems Aquinas says sin is ultimately due to bad reasoning.

Sin is in the will, but the will is just the rational appetite: it’s intimately connected with what the intellect perceives as good. So if we’re made for the good, and yet we choose a lesser good – and sin, even to hell – then don’t we have to admit this is due to ignorance or faulty decision making? In which case, how could anyone truly be culpable to the extent of deserving eternal hell?

That’s the intellectual struggle for me in a nutshell. I go over it more in the other thread.

 

[Gorgias]

But anyway, I don’t reject Catholic teaching on hell. I’m just asking about the Eastern Orthodox and why someone like David Bentley Hart would feel he could promote such a view, if it wasn’t an acceptable one for Eastern Orthodoxy.

OK, my mistake, then. Sorry 'bout that!

 

[whatistrue]

then don’t we have to admit this is due to ignorance or faulty decision making?

As I understand it, ignorance would reduce culpability, but faulty decision making would not. It seems to me that faulty decision making is another way to put “full knowledge and deliberate consent”. You know it is wrong but you want to do it for whatever reason and you decide to do it, either “taking a chance” or “I want this other thing more”.

 

[thistle]

Again, enlighten us! Eternal-hell defenders love to use this parable as support for their beliefs, so by all means, share the interpretive framework that we all need to use to understand this parable. I’m all ear

The Church teaches that Hell is forever. If you disagree then you are wrong, not the Church.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

The sheep plainly cared for all six categories of the needy in this parable, and the goats did not

That is not true at all. There were years throughout history where women didn’t have access to prisons, or it was very hard. And it’s not possible for every single person in a city to be taking turns going to a prison to visit people. And I’d be willing to bet that not every canonized Saint did every single work of mercy. In these verses, Jesus is obviously speaking to the whole group, and they all cared for people in one way or another. The other group didn’t help anyone.

 

[Magnanimity]

The Church teaches

The Church is not reducible to the CCC nor even to the Catholic magisterium. The magisterium itself does not make these claims. The Church is East and West, Orthodox and Catholic, it is ancient, medieval, modern and contemporary. It is me and it is you. And the claims I’ve made are simple—there has never been a unified voice within the Church on the issue of Hell. To believe that there has been is to simply not know history (or the current situation). In point of fact, the wide variety in perspectives on Hell is fairly startling.

 

[Magnanimity]

That is not true at all…The other group didn’t help anyone.

I must have been very confusing in the way that I made my points because I thought that I was essentially saying what you do above. (I was at my son’s soccer game and dictating into my phone, so I don’t doubt it was rushed.) All of humanity does not fit neatly into these two groups. We know this. We know that atheists volunteer in homeless shelters, they engage in charitable giving. And I’m not describing atheists who haven’t heard the gospel. I’m talking about folks like Sam Harris who know the gospel message at least as well as your average Christian knows it, and still rejects the message. And yet, he is very conscientious about his moral life, to include helping the poor and marginalized. And there is no reason to think that he is alone in this—there are many like him. And the reverse is true. Many people who carry a very strong belief in God, have accepted the gospel message and who will pass their entire lives engaging in little to no works of mercy for others, especially those Christians who are a bit Gnostic and believe that it’s what is in the mind and heart that “really matters.”

All of this is simply to say that there aren’t good reasons for viewing this parable as an end-times prophecy. As if, Christ is laying out the movie scene and we are letting it play in our heads. Go along with me as we try to let the events play out like a movie, and try to imagine it all.

First, he says the Son of Man will come in glory with all his angels and he’ll sit on his glorious throne.

Ok, so they’ll descend from heaven or just appear like out of thin air? And where is this throne? Is it going to descend from heaven too? As in, he’s bringing s heavenly throne with him? Like, the throne will float behind the crowd of him and his angels? Or it’ll just magically appear?

“He will gather all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd…”

Ok, so is this everyone, everyone? All the people that have ever lived? Or, it’ll just be the billions that are here now? And he will separate them all individually?!?! How incredibly long would that take? And where would all humans be able to gather? And what would make them come? He’ll just magically make them stand before him while he takes 250 years separating 7.65B each individually (assuming a rate of one/second with no breaks or rest)?

But after these centuries pass and once he does have them separated here’s the real kicker—especially for the sheep—they’re all surprised and confused! None of them understand. Not the sheep, not the goats. They all ask, “Lord, when…? Even those, like us, who have read this parable and presumably should know what’s going on!

So no one says, “yes Lord, I remember reading your parable in Matthew 25 and I knew what was required of me, and I certainly knew I didn’t want to end up on your left hand and…”

I could go on and on, but really what’s the point? Anyone who insists on viewing this parable as some literalistic, end-times prophecy is a very confused person (like all the sheep and the goats!)

 

[Magnanimity]

Sin is in the will, but the will is just the rational appetite: it’s intimately connected with what the intellect perceives as good. So if we’re made for the good…

And our wills are oriented toward good(s), even when there is something lacking in the object/activity sought, such that it’s disordered or “less than the best.” Still, even in these situations, human will are oriented toward some good, toward one’s own happiness.

So my curiosity is always this: toward what, in hell, does a human will orient itself? Unless there are goods in hell, such a state is, I think, incoherent with what we know about how human wills function vis-a-vis the good. This is the DB Hart line of reasoning, but really, any Aristotelian could ask the same question.

 

[thistle]

The Church is not reducible to the CCC nor even to the Catholic magisterium. The magisterium itself does not make these claims. The Church is East and West, Orthodox and Catholic, it is ancient, medieval, modern and contemporary. It is me and it is you. And the claims I’ve made are simple—there has never been a unified voice within the Church on the issue of Hell. To believe that there has been is to simply not know history (or the current situation). In point of fact, the wide variety in perspectives on Hell is fairly startling.

The Catholic Church INFALLIBLY teaches that Hell exists and it is forever. There is no ambiguity there at all.

CCC 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

 

[Magnanimity]

The Catholic Church INFALLIBLY teaches that Hell exists and it is forever. There is no ambiguity there at all.

It’s alright @thistle. The CCC is open to revision and even alteration (eg, #2267 on the death penalty), but it’s ok. If it gives you comfort to follow every word of the CCC as “infallible truth,” then by all means do that. It’s better to have comfort than to feel confusion or despair.
Peace be with you.

 

[thistle]

It’s alright @thistle. The CCC is open to revision and even alteration (eg, #2267 on the death penalty), but it’s ok. If it gives you comfort to follow every word of the CCC as “infallible truth,” then by all means do that. It’s better to have comfort than to feel confusion or despair.
Peace be with you.

Again you are wrong. You seen hung up on the CCC which is not an infallible document. It contains infallible and non-infallible doctrines and also disciplines.
INFALLIBLE doctrines are just that. They are not in error and nor can they be changed. Theoretically a non-infallible doctrine could be. Disciplines can be and have been changed.
The Church teaching trumps your opinion.

 

[Magnanimity]

Hi again, Agatha. Hope you had a good finals week. My oldest is a freshman in college this year, but he wrapped his semester up a few weeks ago. So, regarding your question above, last year a priest here on the Forums recommended to me St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea. Have you ever looked into that work? It’s really great. I bought a 4 volume set, but I believe there is a complete online version. Basically, Saint Thomas brings together all of the greatest minds in the church up until his time and weaves it all into an enormous commentary on the Gospels. It’s definitely worth checking out. I thought Saint Augustine‘s comments, especially the second Section, we’re very helpful. See what you think.

Also, and this is just an aside, doesn’t Christ elsewhere say that “he who is not against you, is with you” when speaking to his disciples?

 

[Magnanimity]

I think the first thing to note about what Saint Augustine says in those quotes by Saint Thomas, is just the very difficulty itself of trying to apprehend what Christ meant in these verses. It isn’t clear at all, even to so great a mind as Saint Augustine. He says, “Yet is this enquiry very mysterious. Let us then seek the light of exposition from the Lord. I say unto you, beloved, that in all Holy Scripture there is not perhaps so great or so difficult a question as this. First then I request you to note that the Lord said not, Every blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven, nor, Whoso shall speak any word against—but, Whoso shall speak the word. Wherefore it is not necessary to think that every blasphemy and every word spoken against the Holy Spirit shall be without pardon; it is only necessary that there be some word which if spoken against the Holy Spirit shall be without pardon.” He then goes on to speculate that Christ was referring to impenitence. Ok, maybe…

St Gregory points out something interesting when he says, “Hence we may gather that there are some sins that are remitted in this world, and some in the world to come.” He is speaking of some type of purgation, but he goes on to describe that such a person would need to have had “good actions” in this life for such forgiveness in the world to come to be possible.

Above, I gave a lengthy quote of St Maximus who himself was attempting to explain one aspect of the apokatastasis of St Gregory. Maximus believed that Gregory advocated, for the wicked, a final return to the Source of all after having spent “aeons” roaming about in Hell. But this return to God is not through a participation in the gifts of God, but rather a mere knowledge of Him. And yet, all things return to the Source of all, in the end, since God is without limitation.

I don’t know any universalists who teach equality in Heaven. I haven’t read any like that. Such a thing would seem quite contrary to the words of Christ anyway - “store up for yourselves treasures in heaven” and “the first will be last, and the last, first.”

I wish I had more specifically to offer you here beyond these few thoughts!

 

[Gorgias]

The CCC is open to revision and even alteration (eg, #2267 on the death penalty), but it’s ok.

Revision and alteration by the magisterium, not by just anyone who thinks it doesn’t teach the truth. Important distinction, there…

You seen hung up on the CCC which is not an infallible document. It contains infallible and non-infallible doctrines and also disciplines.

On a recent program of “Called to Communion”, Dr David Anders spoke about this sort of distinction plainly and clearly. (He was talking about Humanae Vitae, but the point is relevant in this context, as well.) He pointed out that the doctrine itself is infallible, although the particular re-statement of it in a document might not be. So, we hold to the infallible teaching itself, without claiming that the wording in the CCC is itself infallible.

St Gregory points out something interesting when he says, “Hence we may gather that there are some sins that are remitted in this world, and some in the world to come.”

The one thing you keep failing to note is the authority of what St Gregory taught:

• He was not the entirety of the magisterium himself, and therefore, what he taught on his own cannot be considered to have magisterial authority. Instead, it’s the theological opinion of one bishop (not the pope nor the entirety of the college of bishops nor the constant teaching of the Church universal).
• Subsequent to his musings on the subject, the Church itself made a magisterial assertion that refuted his thoughts. Therefore, despite the fact that he thought this was true, it nevertheless is the fact that the Church condemns this opinion.

So… point to St Gregory all you want, but that’s a losing argument.

 

[Magnanimity]

Perhaps that’s right. And yet, St Augustine is also hopeful. “For if He had there condemned them in such sort that no hope remained for them, He would not have added an admonition, Either make the tree good, etc.”

 

[Ana_v]

Then All the warnings Scripture gives about going to hell are interpreted in a hypothetical manner—“If someone did this then he would go to hell; but in fact, nobody does that.” so God is playing with us. He doesn’t mean any of those warnings.
THAT strikes against God’s truthfulness to suggest that Scripture is full of warnings—especially warnings concerning salvation—that are empty, since God never allows anyone to fulfill those requisite conditions.

I recommend a paper for you to read.

I used to object to the theory that we can “reasonably hope that all men will be saved” primarily on the basis that I interpreted the New Testament passages on Hell to be prophecies of what will, in fact, happen to sinners, rather than warnings of what could happen to sinners.

Then I read a paper about passages in the Old Testament, and how this relates to the debate over the meaning of Jesus’ statements concerning Hell.

Praying Confidently for the Salvation of All

(PDF) Praying confidently for the salvation of all | Steven Nemes - Academia.edu

Nutshell:

1. An examination of Old Testament warnings of punishment and condemnation that did not come to pass on account of intercessory prayer and repentance on the part of sinners. Were these empty threats on the part of God? Or rather contingent threats?
2. The Church’s liturgical prayer for the salvation of all. Why pray for such if there is no hope for it?

That is an impressive list of sources from church fathers and theologians the like. So I don’t mean to minimize the tradition by “Bible thumping,” butttttt it just seems so contrary to blunt statements in the New Testament, even

The above paper addresses this.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Then All the warnings Scripture gives about going to hell are interpreted in a hypothetical manner—“If someone did this then he would go to hell; but in fact, nobody does that.” so God is playing with us. He doesn’t mean any of those warnings.
THAT strikes against God’s truthfulness to suggest that Scripture is full of warnings—especially warnings concerning salvation—that are empty, since God never allows anyone to fulfill those requisite conditions.

I recommend a paper for you to read.

I used to object to the theory that we can “reasonably hope that all men will be saved” primarily on the basis that I interpreted the New Testament passages on Hell to be prophecies of what will, in fact, happen to sinners, rather than warnings of what could happen to sinners.

Then I read a paper about passages in the Old Testament, and how this relates to the debate over the meaning of Jesus’ statements concerning Hell.

Praying Confidently for the Salvation of All

http://www.academia.edu/34309821/Praying_confidently_for_the_salvation_of_all

Nutshell:

1. An examination of Old Testament warnings of punishment and condemnation that did not come to pass on account of intercessory prayer and repentance on the part of sinners. Were these empty threats on the part of God? Or rather contingent threats?
2. The Church’s liturgical prayer for the salvation of all. Why pray for such if there is no hope for it?

The objection isn’t that we can pray or hope for EVERYONE’S salvation. There is nothing wrong with that.

The objection is believing that everyone is saved. THAT is heresy, and it has been formally and consistently declared a heresy since the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 543.

BTW you didn’t open the link I provided that answers your points