Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum

Joel Troxell

Jun 6, 06 - 9:13 AM

Universalism and Patristics (first post)

Hello!

I've posted something similar to this in a yahoo universalism group. I figured I would post it here to try to get as many views on the subject as possible. Thanks in advance for any responses!

I'm new to the concept of universalism, it is
something I've been mulling over for a while. I'm a pretty conservative evangelical-ish Christian, so the concept of an eternal hell is pretty well ingrained theologically in my belief system. So change is slow.

I've found the biblical arguments for universalism pretty darn convincing. But I also have a supposition that makes my absolute acceptance in universalism a little tricky: biblical texts are best understood in the context of those most closely associated with the
texts. I know, I know, this is a flirtation with Catholic/Orthodox notions of "scripture & tradition" or "scripture & magisterium" etc, but it makes sense to me that whatever is worth believing can be
found supported in the writings of those closest to the apostles. This is how I was able to rid myself of pre-trib rapture/dispensationalist notions.

So how do universalists answer church fathers like the anonymous homily attributed to Clement of Rome: "If, therefore, we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if not, nothing will deliver us
from eternal punishment, if we obey not his commandments (2 Clement 6:7)."

or Justin Martyr, from his 1st Apology, chapter 12: "For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing
that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire; but would by all means restrain himself, and adorn himself with virtue, that he might obtain the good gifts of God, and escape the punishments."

or Mathetes, in his letter to Diognetus, chapter 10, "....then shall thou condemn the deceit and error of the world when thou shall know what it is to live truly in heaven, when thou shalt despise that which is here esteemed to be death, when thou shalt fear what is truly death, which is reserved for those who shall be condemned to the eternal fire, which shall afflict those even to the end that are committed to it."

or this quote from the Martyrdom of Polycarp: "Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of
their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire"

I'm familiar with the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, et. al. that were universalists, but they came much later than most of these writers who were within the second century.

I'm also familiar with the "aionian" arguments for universalism, which I guess might be applicable to these writings if there are still manuscripts in greek, but it seems even from the context of
these writings, even when you might substitute in some other word or phrase for "eternal", that it does not fit as well contextually as "eternal", especially given pseudo-Clement's declaration that nothing will deliver from this punishment, Mathetes' contrast of the short death of the martyrs with the true death of those condemned, and the account of Polycarp's martyrdom using the repetitive "eternal and unquenchable."

So if anyone with a good understanding of patristics or anything related could help me out with this, I'd appreciate it. Or, if there is another thread that answers this, please point me to it.

Pax,
Joel

Ed

Jun 6th, 2006 - 11:43 AM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

Hi,

Mike always seems ready with some key church fathers quotes of his own. There are certainly some to counter these. We have to look at things as a whole and ask ourselves what makes more sense over all.

To be honest, these quotes don't really bother me. I believe our God is an eternal, consuming fire. This Fire is a life giving force to those who love God and reject sin. To those in sin, it is torment. Sooner or later, one must reject sin and turn to God. If you keep holding on to that sin, the torment continues and increases. Without repentance, the torment continues forever; it is an eternal punishment, but one can move out of it. I believe, in the ultimate victory of God when all things are summed up in Christ, that repentance will have come for us all.

Ed

Joel Troxell

Jun 6th, 2006 - 12:07 PM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

Thanks Ed,

Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely leaning in the direction of universalism. Theologically, it closes a lot of gaps that are gaping holes in other Christian theologies: if there is an eternal hell then Calvinism is cruel, and Arminianism makes the will of man stronger than the will of God (and Jesus a failure for not effecting a salvation for all people).

But I guess when indoctrinated with fire and brimstone for so long, the good news of Christ's irresistable grace seems, well, too good to be true. I'm just trying to make sure I cover all of the sources I normally consider for truth.

-Joel

Ed

Jun 6th, 2006 - 2:17 PM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

" I'm just trying to make sure I cover all of the sources I normally consider for truth."

That is a good idea. It is good to give yourself some time and not to pretend you are sure of something before you are.

Actually, I'm one who does not feel I can beat people over the head with universalism and insist they accept it. I'm not even sure what the point would be in doing so.

Here's what it comes down to for me: If I accept that it is at least a reasonably biblical position among its alternatives, then I ask myself two questions.

1) What ultimately makes the most sense overall?

2) What seems more like the God I know?

Once I began to consider it a strong possibility, I began to find signs of it throughout scripture that I had never noticed before. Given the traditional position of first assuming eternal torment and reading the scriptures based on that assumption, it is not surprising that I missed all the hints and outright statements concerning universal reconciliation.

Ed

Mark J

Jun 6th, 2006 - 3:51 PM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

Even back in the time of the bible there where people teaching things that where not right....This is the warning in the BIBLE...>>>

'I am marvelling that thus, swiftly, you are transferred from that which calls you in the grace of Christ, to a different evangel, which is not another, except it be that some who are disturbing you want also to distort the good news of Christ. But if ever we also, or a messenger out of heaven, should be bringing an evangel to you beside that which we bring to you, let him be anathema! ...if anyone is bringing you an evangel beside that which you accepted, let him be anathema (originally an accursed sacrifice to appease the 'gods' - not a good thing!) (Galatians 1:6-9)

Here we see that even back then people where DISTORTING the GOOD NEWS....

Mike Burke

Jun 7th, 2006 - 12:18 AM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

Hi Joel (and welcome),

Let's start with that quote from Mathetes:

then shalt thou both love and admire those that suffer punishment because they will not deny God; then shall thou condemn the deceit and error of the world when thou shall know what it is to live truly in heaven, when thou shalt despise that which is here esteemed to be death, when thou shalt fear what is truly death, which is reserved for those who shall be condemned to the eternal (aionian) fire, which shall afflict those even to the end that are committed to it. Then shalt thou admire those who for righteousness’ sake endure the fire that is but for a moment, and shalt count them happy when thou shalt know [the nature of] that fire. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.htm

The Greek is "aionian," and if it meant "eternity" to Mathetes, what did he mean by "unto the end"?

Eternity has no end.

Consider the following:

some of the greatest masters of Greek, both in classical times and among the Fathers, saw quite clearly that, though the word might connote endlessness by being attributively added to endless things, it had in itself no such meaning. I cannot conceive how any candid mind can deny the force of these considerations. If even Origenists would freely speak of future punishment as aionios but never as ateleutetos [without end] –– if, as even these papers have shown, Plato uses the word as the antithesis of endlessness –– if St. Gregory of Nyssa uses it as the epithet of "an interval"–– if, as though to leave this Augustinian argument without the faintest shadow of a foundation, there are absolutely two passages of Scripture (Hab.3:6 and Rom.16:25,26) where the very word occurs in two consecutive clauses, and is, in the second of the two clauses, applied to God, and yet is, in the first of the two clauses, applied to things which are temporary or terminated –– what shall be said of disputants who still enlist the controversial services of a phantom which has been so often laid in the tomb from which it ought never again to emerge?

http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com/Farrar.html

Now let's look at Papias (one of the earliest Church Fathers):

As the presbyters say, then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions:” for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, “For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die. “But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.v.html

Clement of Alexandria:

For all things are ordered both universally and in particular by the Lord of the universe, with a view to the salvation of the universe. But needful corrections, by the goodness of the great, overseeing judge, through the attendant angels, through various prior judgments, through the final judgment, compel even those who have become more callous to repent.

So he saves all; but some he converts by penalties, others who follow him of their own will, and in accordance with the worthiness of his honor, that every knee may be bent to him of celestial, terrestrial and infernal things (Phil. 2:10), that is angels, men, and souls who before his advent migrated from this mortal life.

For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually.

http://www.romancatholicism.org/clement-apokatastasis.htm

As to Gregory of Nyssa, A very interesting article appears in an Orthodox Theological Journal:

http://www.theandros.com/restoration.html

Joel Troxell

Jun 7th, 2006 - 3:38 AM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the welcome!

“The Greek is "aionian," and if it meant "eternity" to Mathetes, what did he mean by "unto the end"?”

The quote from Mathetes is troubling simply because it can be vague – which makes it not a very good argument for either position, I guess. :) Should “unto the end” be taken literally of those condemned to it, thus supporting annihilationism? Should it be taken literally of hellfire to support the universalist position? Or should it be taken metaphorically, as a culmination of events in a person’s life, similar to “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4).” I don’t know. And the “even” in that phrase is troubling as well. I haven’t looked at it in the greek, so I don’t know if it is “kai” or another greek word that can be used for any number of things. Mark’s Gospel uses “kai” as sentence breaks. So I was hoping you could shed some light on this quote. ;)

The quote from the fragments of Papias, unless I am blatantly missing something, speaks of a gradation of intimacy with God in heaven by those who are saved. He does speak of Christ’s defeat of death, but this is a New Testament quote, and he seems to either interpret this allegorically or ignore the question of those who are unjust in saying, “For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die.” The entire quote seems to completely ignore the question of the unjust. He does use the word “all”, but is he using it in context of those deemed worthy to see God? I guess since he fails to say anything about the condemned it could be assumed that he sees all humanity restored to God through Christ,but isn’t that sort of an argument from silence?

As for Clement of Alexandria: I’m already a fan. I was hoping there was something a little earlier than him that stated things as explicitly as he does, that also can avoid the “Alexandrian heretic” charge that is often leveled at he and Origen.

Patristic questions aside, the biblical/exegetical arguments for universalism are very, very strong. That in itself should be enough to convince me, but it never hurts to see what the early fathers have to say on anything.

Thanks for the links, I’ll definitely give them a look!

Pax,
Joel

Mike Burke

Jun 7th, 2006 - 11:33 AM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

[quote]The quote from the fragments of Papias, unless I am blatantly missing something, speaks of a gradation of intimacy with God in heaven by those who are saved."[unquote]

He speaks both of those who are saved (worthy), and those who "shall be."

[quote]He does speak of Christ’s defeat of death, but this is a New Testament quote[unquote]

Taken in context, I find this quote very significant.

[quote]he seems to either interpret this allegorically or ignore the question of those who are unjust in saying, “For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die.”[unquote]

By "the times of the Kingdom," I believe he refers to the millennium. This earliest of Church Fathers was a premillennialist:

…there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.vi.html

[quote]He does use the word “all”, but is he using it in context of those deemed worthy to see God?[unquote]

All will be deemed worthy in the end, which is why I believe he says:

"for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy."

His New Testament quote (concerning God ultimately being all in all) immediately follows this statement, and the inference seems clear.

[quote]I guess since he fails to say anything about the condemned it could be assumed that he sees all humanity restored to God through Christ, but isn’t that sort of an argument from silence?[unquote]

I believe his silence would be inexclicable if he believed in eternal torment, particularly given the fact that the Church was in it's very infancy. Papias (and all of his readers) almost certainly had mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, who died in paganism. The entire world was pagan at the time. How could he speak as he does if he believed that all who died outside the infant Church were lost forever?

[quote]Patristic questions aside, the biblical/exegetical arguments for universalism are very, very strong. That in itself should be enough to convince me, but it never hurts to see what the early fathers have to say on anything.[unquote]

Agreed.

God Bless.

Ed Smith

Jun 7th, 2006 - 11:35 AM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

Mark: "Even back in the time of the bible there where people teaching things that where not right....This is the warning in the BIBLE..."

That is a good point, Mark, though some of what we see here may just not be properly understood. In addition to what we might consider "false teachers", we have to remember that even good teachers are usually mistaken about some things. Even New Testament authors were not infallible men (though we can rely on what they said under inspiration). Thus, even if we find additional writings or sayings of the apostles themselves, we can't be sure they are entirely correct. For example, we know Peter was out of line at least once because of the recorded (Galatians 2) rebuke which Paul gave him. "If you, being a Jew, live like Gentiles and not like Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

However, early extra-biblical writings which don't conflict with scripture can strengthen the case for some things.

--Ed

Mark J

Jun 8th, 2006 - 9:52 PM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

You also have to remember that lot of writtings have been lost over time, due to wars and fires....

Joel Troxell

Jun 9th, 2006 - 9:27 AM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

Mike,

Thanks for the response. Makes sense.

What do you think was responsible for the paradigm shift in the early church by the time of Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine, etc, when it came to this matter? Any guesses?

Thanks,
Joel

Mike Burke

Jun 10th, 2006 - 6:52 PM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

[quote]Thanks for the response. Makes sense.[unquote]

Thank you Joel,

You asked [quote]What do you think was responsible for the paradigm shift in the early church by the time of Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine, etc, when it came to this matter?[unquote]

Augustine, the great champion of eternal torment, wrote:

"There are very many (imo quam plurimi, can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments" (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c.29).

I believe His great influence, and the doctrine of reserve (which held that the final salvation of all was not a truth to be over-emphasized, or taught to those likely to use it only as an excuse to sin, and was believed by many universalists) helped turn what had been a majority view into the minority view it's been since the 4th century.

God Bless.

Darroll Evans

Apr 7th, 2007 - 5:35 PM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

Joel,

Although I do not consider myself to be Universalist, but instead a Reconciliationist, I can recommend the Michael Burke brand of Universalism. It teaches Christ is the only Way, Truth, and Life.

At this writing, we are getting ready to cerebrate His resurrection. On the cross, Christ took responsibility for our sin. He was the substitutionary sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2). And yet, He has risen and sits at the right hand of the Father (Romans 8:34).

His taking of our sins and resurrection is a sign that we too, even the most vile sinner, shall EVERNTUALLY be raised to life by the same power that raised Christ. I Corinthians 15:23-24a tells of three resurrections. We all agree that the first two are resurrections to live, but mainstream Christianity teaches that the third resurrection in that series is a resurrection to the second death.

Think about it a resurrection from death to death---does that make sense?

I don’t think so!

Mike Burke

Apr 14th, 2007 - 1:51 PM

Re: Universalism and Patristics (first post)

Thank you Darroll.

BTW: I apologize to all who visit this thread for not proofreading my second post ("inexclicable," should be "inexplicable.")

Be aware that there's no way for a visitor to edit a post on this forum, and the only way I can edit one is by deleting the original message and re-posting an edited version.

	Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
Return to Website