Isaac of Syria and Universalism

[Virginia804]

I’ve read some of Isaac of Syria and he seems to convey as much hope overall as does Julian of Norwich. I am very impressed with his understanding that God does not act in vengence, but only to heal, and that applies to every being in the long run.

Have you all read Isaac and is there a difference regarding whether every being is eventually reconciled to God in the long run between the Eastern Church (as in Orthodox Russian or Greek), the Eastern Rite in Catholicism, and the Western Rite?

 

[Cluny]

The idea of universal restoration was repudiated at one of the Ecumenical Councils, even if some of the Holy Fathers contemplated the idea once.

It is also anathematized in the Office of Orthodoxy, celebrated on the First Sunday of Lent in Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

 

[Virginia804]

Cluny,
Thanks for your reply. This doesn’t mean, does it, that we KNOW there are any souls in hell? I know that God would not force salvation on us, but I also have a difficult time believing God would create any being knowing it would be separated eternally. Isaac of Syrian held such a strong position about this, even going so far as to desribe hell as more along the lines of what we currently think of as pergatory; I’m surprized he was canonized in both the Eastern and Western Church with this in his writings. I know canonization is not to be understood there was no error in the writings of the saint, just wondering if the position of the Church has changed over time about this issue.

It seems that there is also a form of universalism that is very detrimental to the faithful, if it is understood as a license to just go about being carnal since in the end there is no consequences. Isaac writes that one should be repenting and seeking God now, since certainly hell is nothing to be taken lightely, but he also maintains that God only chastizes to heal in the long run. Does that sound so heretical?

It is not a good thing if people are faithful only out of fear; it is certainly better to love God and seek his will because he is God, and life in union with God is the only real freedom.

Is this making any sense?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’ve read some of Isaac of Syria and he seems to convey as much hope overall as does Julian of Norwich. I am very impressed with his understanding that God does not act in vengence, but only to heal, and that applies to every being in the long run.

Have you all read Isaac and is there a difference regarding whether every being is eventually reconciled to God in the long run between the Eastern Church (as in Orthodox Russian or Greek), the Eastern Rite in Catholicism, and the Western Rite?

St. Isaac of Nineveh (I think he was not even a Catholic, but a Monophysite ) is stressing something of enormous, huge, vast importance, something Pauline: that the salvation of Christ is universal, that He is the Saviour of all men, and by implication, of all creation. This does not contradict the equally strong Pauline emphasis on election, but has to be held in tension with it: like just about everything else in the Christian faith. Far too often, Christian theology has played down or as good as denied this universality - the great glory of Origen is that he did not, & neither does St. Isaac. In the West, this part of St. Paul’s teaching has been recovered as an essential part of theological tradition only in recent times: perhaps because the West has been so concerned with soteriology; it’s not seen the wood for the trees.​

“Being saved” is only part of reconciliation to God - reconciliation is cosmic, nothing less; so it is not enough to concentrate on the individual’s salvation: whether this be the individual person or the individual Church. All these are essential aspects of the fact of reconciliation, definitely, but they do not exhaust the work of Christ as Reconciler.

Just MOs.

 

[Ghosty]

We do know that there are eternally damned beings: the demons and Satan. That in itself negates universalism in the sense you are talking about. As for humans who are damned, we don’t have names as there are no anti-Saint canonizations, but we do know from Scripture that some souls will be damned. We don’t know exactly who, but it’s pretty certain that not everyone is making it to Heaven.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Virginia804]

GoG - thanks so much for your reply. I was beginning to think I am nuts for Isaac making so much sense. Von Balthasar (I am guessing you’ve read his book “Dare We Hope…”) got all sort of angry mail because he suggested we just HOPE that all are saved.

I don’t know of anyplace in scripture that says some are damned. From the research I have done, there is a great deal of complexity involved in interpreting “eternal fire.” I’ve read some linguistic analyses which explain that the sense is “fire which is not put out,” in the sense of letting a fire burn itself out.

I cannot believe that God writes anyone, including the fallen angels, off forever. Scripture has a great deal on God being eternally faithful, and if that does not mean continuing to reach out to each creature, until all are redeemed, I don’t know what it means.

Actually, I can’t imagine that heaven is heaven until everyone is there. How can we possibly have the fullness of joy if there is some creature that is experiencing a sense of God-forsakenness or hatred of God?

The issue of hatred of God is strange: apathy seems worse somehow, more distant than hatred. Behind hatred there is hurt, or anger, or something…after all, in the beginning isn’t it said that God created all beings, even the angels that are now fallen. Don’t they continue to exist at all only through God’s will? It’s not as if the fallen angels are an adversary to God; it seems more that they hurt us and whatever they can to hurt God.

The tricky part is to not toss out free-will in the process, but it does not seem that “choice” in and of itself, is equivalent to freedom. Madmen make choices, such as to jump off a bridge, but we don’t regard it as a violation of their freedom to restrain them and lock them up for their own safety. Thus I’m not sure that our sense of “freedom” in this day is sufficiently infused by the understanding of divine freedom, which seems more to be the ability to act in accordance with the will of God, regardless of personal consequences, as did Christ.

 

[Cluny]

St. Isaac of Nineveh (I think he was not even a Catholic, but a Monophysite ) is stressing something of enormous, huge, vast importance, something Pauline: that the salvation of Christ is universal, that He is the Saviour of all men, and by implication, of all creation.​

St. Isaac of Syria was an Orthodox Catholic bishop of Nineveh in an area of Nestorians (not Monophysites).

But he is prized primarily for his writings on the spiritual and mystical life.

 

[antgaria]

St. Isaac of Nineveh is a universal saint. He is in the CCC as “St. Isaac”… so even in the Catholic Church he is a saint. He was a bishop of the Church of the East - for about 6 months if I recall correctly. Some different guesses as to why he left that quickly, but one of them is that it may have been because of his tendencies towards universalism.

Universalism is an interesting concept, with quite a few early fathers holding to something of that idea in their theories. The main objection against the concept is that it denies the possibility of free will and the ability to reject God’s love. Some saints held personal beliefs that approached this, but as their own speculation {St. Isaac and St. Gregory come to mind}. Even today, it is pointed out that the condemnation of it was as far as it denied free will.

I like reading what H.G. Bishop Kallistos Wares {Eastern Orthodox} says regarding this in terms of hope of vs firm affirmation of… I think it makes sense. I mean, if we pray for our enemies, do we not pray for their souls and does not this hope of ours come from love?

 

[Aramis]

Part of the problem is that, while not considered scripture by the modern Jews as a whole, the Book of Lilleth establishes a LOT about angels and demons… part of which is that it is almost impossible for them to change their nature, and that, when they do, they turn to the other kind.

We inherited a lot of this book’s material in the traditions; not the parts about Adam’s first wife, Lilleth, but much of the codification of Jewish beliefs of the war in heaven and Satan’s rebellion. (Likewise, the infancy gospel of Thomas and the Protoevangelion of James both have significant elements that are in the propers of the Byzantine Rite, even tho those books are not canonical.)

Those mortals condemned to hell are so because they rejected God’s Mercy. The church has always said that there are definitely souls in hell, and some are there for eternity for sure, but that’s because, in losing their body, their nature had become so corrupt by choice that they will reject even God’s Mercy.

The church has always taught also that we mortals are not privy to who is in hell… we know those in heaven by their posthumous miracles.

 

[Virginia804]

OK, so God doesn’t have to be completely intelligible to us, but I still haven’t seen a cogent argument for why God would create a being knowing it will end up in hell forever.
Or maybe God doesn’t know (there goes omniscience)? I’m fine with God not knowing how a soul will choose, but I think the tradition, both East and West, maintain that God does know. If He does, then why do that?

I’m not trying to start a dumb sophomoric argument about the internal inconsistency of the attributes of God, but on a more gut level, a God who is so compassionate and tender does not seem the sort who would create a being who would suffer hell - and I’m not actually sure how to think of that any more either - eternally.

Do any of you experience the same consternation?

 

[antgaria]

Dear Virgina804,

In our quest for reason we can in no ways posit a God that is not omnipotent and omniscient. Those are characteristics that are part of our definition of what God must be.

I’m not the kind that loves answers like saying God knows better and don’t question Him, but I think in this case we can only lay some guesses. As you mentioned God is Love and wills all to be saved, and yet at the same time He has given us the freedom of will, and it can be seen where one can be so stubborn that even with the Love of God which burns him so he will not desire to repent. In this world, there are many that hold on to their stubborness and refuse to grasp a helping hand. Can we not see someone who would not be able to truly love and want the glorification of God above his own needs? I mean repentance for the sake of getting out of the fire will not be good enough if the fire is the love of God. there’s need of an internal repentance towards Him… to turn towards the fire.

This is part of the urgency we have in preaching the message and showing God’s light and truth to everyone. Even if we hold out hope for salvation of all, it is not something that is to be taught, nor is it something that we can impose on God. After all, who is the all-knowing Creator? God or us? We can pray for all… and when we are resurrected it will be lovely to see some people there who we {in our own stubborn judgementalism} thought might not make it out of this world in good shape…

But the judgement and other things are not our business. Our business is to lead people to God… through Christ, In Christ, with Christ…

 

[Shin]

We do know that souls are in Hell, this is the teaching of the Fathers and their interpretations of many passages of scripture.

One third of the fallen angels are in Hell, and there are trillions upon trillions of these – but that does not truly describe the numbers literally, there are far more.

Mankind is generally given by the saints a different prognosis than the angels, instead of the few falling into Hell it is the many. Rather than 1/3, it is the opposite.

Trouble accepting Hell is an emotional issue based on some misunderstandings in thought.

However many are in Hell, we will all be perfectly happy and pleased with it when we enter into Heaven, because it will all be just and perfectly right.

We will see how terrible sin truly is, and understand. It would be good if we could try to understand more on this earth.

 

[Virginia804]

Antgaria:
Yes, point taken. The most important thing is to show others the love of God through how we treat them; I sort of feel preaching is secondary. Although Jesus also preached, so it much have importance. Why not teach it? What if it is taught correctly, as in, the time to repent is now…the time to unite with the will of God is now, since one won’t be happy otherwise. I find as long as people “convert” out of fear, they have not converted at all.

Shin:
I am dismayed by how you think hell will be more populated than heaven. Do you really think you can enjoy heaven if, let’s say, all your friends and family, spouse, children, parents - everyone you know - is in hell?

Sometimes the very symptom of sickness is not being able to accept help, as in the person who is trying to commit suicide. Would you suggest that if we see someone who is trying to jump off a bridge out of an insane grief, and pushing people away who are tring to stop him, that we just should stand back and let him jump? Rejecting mercy may be part of the effects of sin sickness, which Jesus heals.

Have you noticed how many times Jesus heals others at the request of someone else? Including people who are dead? Did it violate their free will to be healed when they didn’t or couldn’t ask for it, or is God’s healing truer than our despair?

 

[antgaria]

Virginia,

As Shin and Ghosty pointed out, hell is very real… and our hope for people is not in that it wonn’t exist or it won’t have people in it. I’m sorry, I’m not trying to walk a tightrope here, it is just that you don’t necessarily have to take one set of quotes from Tradition/Scriptures and face them off against the other. All co-exist in a kind of tension that is probably due to the fact that we are on this side of Church, and not with the Saints and Angels in Heaven yet. I don’t know anything about numbers or people who will be in hell… and I’m pretty sure they were not suggesting to abandon people or push them into hell… but

… when we are in heaven, and if we see our relative in hell, no matter the dismay we may have here in this life regarding that premise, I can only say that we will be happy nonetheless in heaven… it’ll be as nothing any eye has seen, or any ear heard, or any heart conceived. An eternity of glorifying God and contemplating Him and we will not exhaust the breath and width of Him, so much does His wisdom and love transcend ours. In this world/life, we know only a shadow in our mind of His love for us; sure scripture tells us, but we can’t comprehend what it says!!! I mean John 3:16, but can we comprehend how big it is? I can’t… and I dare not accuse Him who should be our accuser and our judge.

Now for the thing about fear. I think you are right about fear of hell not being a good way to focus on people. I think it is clear that the Christianity {Catholic Church} outreach has always been centered around charity. Yet, to not to warn them of the fiery punishment of hell for those who transgress would be a grievous fault that we would well be blamed for when we stand before God. But you do not convert people through fear, and actually, I think that Fear and Awe of God is something that comes about only through a deeper spiritual contemplation, something that someone who has not yet converted to Christianity might not necessarily have.

To demonstrate… let’s take our fathers. We are to love our fathers and mothers… part of it is a respect for their power over us and ability to chastise us {not merely physically}. I think if you look at classical Syriac piety, this is expressed well with the root dhl ܕܚܠ… which means fear, but also more. It carries also meanings of awe, reverence and worship.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

GoG - thanks so much for your reply. I was beginning to think I am nuts for Isaac making so much sense. Von Balthasar (I am guessing you’ve read his book “Dare We Hope…”) got all sort of angry mail because he suggested we just HOPE that all are saved.

Yes, I have - & was thinking of recommending it to poster 4.​

I don’t know of anyplace in scripture that says some are damned. From the research I have done, there is a great deal of complexity involved in interpreting “eternal fire.” I’ve read some linguistic analyses which explain that the sense is “fire which is not put out,” in the sense of letting a fire burn itself out.

I cannot believe that God writes anyone, including the fallen angels, off forever. Scripture has a great deal on God being eternally faithful, and if that does not mean continuing to reach out to each creature, until all are redeemed, I don’t know what it means.

Actually, I can’t imagine that heaven is heaven until everyone is there. How can we possibly have the fullness of joy if there is some creature that is experiencing a sense of God-forsakenness or hatred of God?

One needs to be careful here - C. S.Lewis addresses the difficulty that everyone might not be saved, & that the bliss of the Blessed would be incomplete as a result. Have you read his book “The Great Divorce” ? In “The Problem of Pain” he notes that we tend to think of Heaven & Hell as “happening” at the same “time” - as though the Blessed could think, “X is suffering in Hell now”. In “The Horse and His Boy”, Lewis has the lion Aslan (who is in that invented world the functional equivalent of what Jesus in the world of men) tell a character who asks about someone else: “I tell everyone his own story”. God, I think, “tell everyone his own story” - ultimately, your or my damnation is in your or my hands; each of us can answer for himself or herself alone, in that none of us can decide for another by proxy, none of us can be anyone but each one of us. We can hope and work for the salvation of others than ourselves, but our choices are ours, with all the responsibility this entails.​

So part of the answer - insofar as one is possible for us to “receive” - seems to be that if anyone is “absent”, that absence is chosen, deliberate, & not something any of us can do anything about. That sounds harsh, but is not meant to. And that curiosity about others is out of place. No one can do anything about Hitler. Only Hitler could. Hitler could think, “what about Hitler ?” - but Joe Bloggs can’t; instead, Joe Bloggs can do something about Joe Bloggs; his own story is the only story he need bother with, because it is the only one over which he has any control.

What is clear, I think, is that in some sense “all will be well” - even **if **some are lost. The important thing is that the Kingdom should come: everything else is measured by that. Damnation is not an “accident” or an injustice, and “being saved”, though it is important, is less important than that God’s Will should be fulfilled. The Kingdom is to be sort “first”, because if it is given first place, everything else will fall into place - “take care of the pounds, and the pennies will take care of themselves”. Give anything else the primacy - and in the end, nothing will make sense.

That’s how it STM, anyway. But read Lewis His children’s stories leave most theologians standing.

The issue of hatred of God is strange: apathy seems worse somehow, more distant than hatred. Behind hatred there is hurt, or anger, or something…after all, in the beginning isn’t it said that God created all beings, even the angels that are now fallen. Don’t they continue to exist at all only through God’s will? It’s not as if the fallen angels are an adversary to God; it seems more that they hurt us and whatever they can to hurt God.

The tricky part is to not toss out free-will in the process, but it does not seem that “choice” in and of itself, is equivalent to freedom. Madmen make choices, such as to jump off a bridge, but we don’t regard it as a violation of their freedom to restrain them and lock them up for their own safety. Thus I’m not sure that our sense of “freedom” in this day is sufficiently infused by the understanding of divine freedom, which seems more to be the ability to act in accordance with the will of God, regardless of personal consequences, as did Christ.

Maybe God’s Will is the proper “environment” for ours to be, act, live & flourish - I think God’s “contains” ours, a bit as amber can contain a fossil - except that God is unimaginably “alive”, which amber is not. Just a guess ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

St. Isaac of Syria was an Orthodox Catholic bishop of Nineveh in an area of Nestorians (not Monophysites).

But he is prized primarily for his writings on the spiritual and mystical life.

Thanks ​

 

[Virginia804]

Well, I guess we are on different pages.
From what I read of scripture, we SHOULD be thinking about others, not saying, “Whatever they decide for themself, that is their affair.”

I want to ask you all what bible you have been reading, because it doesn’t seem to be the same one.

What about Jesus sayings about who is our neighbor?
What about laying down our life for our friends as being the easy path?
I would say that yes, we do take on what happens to Hitler, since I could have been him.

What is with this individualization of Christianity. Surely it is not consistent with the fundamental nature of God.

 

[Ghosty]

Well, I guess we are on different pages.
From what I read of scripture, we SHOULD be thinking about others, not saying, “Whatever they decide for themself, that is their affair.”

I want to ask you all what bible you have been reading, because it doesn’t seem to be the same one.

What about Jesus sayings about who is our neighbor?
What about laying down our life for our friends as being the easy path?
I would say that yes, we do take on what happens to Hitler, since I could have been him.

What is with this individualization of Christianity. Surely it is not consistent with the fundamental nature of God.

Jesus also spoke very clearly and frighteningly about the reality and eternity of damnation, moreso than any other figure in Scripture in fact.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

St. Isaac of Syria was an Orthodox Catholic bishop of Nineveh in an area of Nestorians (not Monophysites).

But he is prized primarily for his writings on the spiritual and mystical life.

St. Isaac was a Catholicos of the Church of the East for a short while and then retired to a monastery.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Does St. Faustina or Fatima mean anything or was everything of the west thrown out along with the primacy of the “Chair of Peter” in 1054? If not, then 741 of St. Faustina’s diary states she was taken to see hell and all the damned suffering there as well as the Angel telling her most of those there didn’t believe in hell. Not that “not believing” in it gets you sent there but that not believing in it causes you to not do anything to avoid it.

The children at Fatima, ages 7, 7, and 9, were shown a view of hell, and to show hell to little children indicates a seriousness that can’t be ignored. Consequently, we should do everything possible to do the Will of God and to pray diligently for the conversion of sinners. God is Justice as well as Mercy, He has Anger toward those who sin. We can run from the Anger of God to His Mercy.