The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Indirect Universalist Influences

Evangelical Universalism
#1

Critics love to state that universalism is heretical and a fringe belief totally outside of the scope of the mainstream. But this is actually quite untrue and a viewpoint borne out of some rather tragic ignorance of church history. Actually, most universalistic influences have just been rather secondary and indirect, as attempts have been made to push it out into the sidelines. Some of the greatest influences upon the church and the world have been universalistic in belief while ether they or their beliefs have remained obscure and worked from the background (or else their influence has been largely forgotten)

Excluding the Pauline Christian communities and Paul himself, partially because it’s so hotly debated but also because if Scripture is universalistic then that is a given, we have this partial list:

Origen (considered heretical, but what seems to be unknown is his influence on St. Gregory who was also a universalist)
Many Anabaptists (simple Christian communities which I believe influenced the Moravians and Quakers)
Early Universalist movement in colonial America (which could probably be said to have helped fuel the Revolution and the concept of natural rights)
George MacDonald (C.S. Lewis’s self-admitted greatest inspiration)
Florence Nightengale (I have a vague idea of her influence on the medical community)
Madeleine L’Engle (influential children’s fantasy author)
Charles Schulz (according to Amirault!)
Hannah Hurnard (influential writer whom inspired the name of Jars of Clay’s album Much Afraid)

Any others? I’d love to add them to the list. Would Karl Barth be one?

#2

Don’t forget Nyssa, although his view isn’t truly UR. It’s like a crooked UR. From what I read, he didn’t seem very sure what he believed. Also Siluoan?

What I find interesting is that a positive view like Universalism is always called a heresy, while various views such as just war and anything that allows people to kill and torture each other is sound doctrine. :unamused:

Yes, yes, I know, I need to stop being so bitter…

#3

Yeah, I mentioned Gregory of Nyssa in the parentheses after Origen. :wink: I didn’t realize he was so uncertain though.

Who was Siluoan? I’m intrigued.

And, I’d think there’d be some room for just war theory in wise counsel. I mean, just in the context of only going to war against Hitler or for defense or an extreme violation of justice, etc.

#4

This is all I know really: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of … iversalism

Unfortunately, I’m not very good at extensive research and what not. I generally collect snippets of stuff everywhere and derive stuff intuitively. Strangely enough, it worked so far. :laughing:

Tbh, I’m not so sure. He was a staretz (elder) among Eastern Orthodox monks who was big on love. He took it as his job to pray for people, especially those he would consider the most troubled, i.e., “enemies”, “wicked”, etc. And everyone (by everyone I mean EOC’s) seems to like to quote this exchange:

‘It was particularly characteristic of Staretz Silouan to pray for the dead suffering in the hell of separation from God’, writes Fr Sophrony, and he goes on to recall an exchange that he overheard between the Starets and a somewhat dour hermit:

I remember a conversation between him and a certain hermit, who declared with evident satisfaction, ‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’

Obviously upset, The Staretz said:

‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise and there looked down and saw somebody burning in hell-fire - would you feel happy?’

‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.

The Staretz answered him with a sorrowful countenance:

‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all’

I have no idea what Silouan meant here, per se, but what we see here is a clear opposition to the evangalical ETC style acceptance of eternal damnation of everybody. He wasn’t satisfied by it, it was not OK, and he worked to lessen it. Compared to the hermit, who enjoyed the idea.

The problem with the definition of just wars is that it really goes under human approval at the end of the day. And human approval cannot be trusted. Today it’s war against Hitler. Tomorrow it’s war against “heretics”. Been there, seen that…

#5

I’m pretty confident he was a universalist… St. Gregory of Nyssa :sunglasses:

#6

Well, I mean, as I referenced, here’s the Wikipedia entry:

“However, in the Great Catechism, Gregory suggests that while every human will be resurrected, salvation will only be accorded to the baptised.[32] While he believes that there will be no more evil in the hereafter, it is arguable that this does not preclude a belief that God might justly damn sinners for eternity.[33] Thus, the main difference between Gregory’s conception of ἀποκατάστασις and that of Origen would be that Gregory believes that mankind will be collectively returned to sinlessness, whereas Origen believes that personal salvation will be universal.[33]”

This is quoted from Great Catechism, to which I have no access to so I can’t verify. The link you gave me seems to concern itself with different books of his. That’s why I said “seems like he doesn’t know what he believes in” because there seem to be different proposed universalist theories or something, and they kinda contradict each other. And I’ve been told by an EOC that if you actually read Nyssa’s writings his Universalism is of a special type.

#7

I used to have access to GregNyss’ works here at the office, but the program that carried it doesn’t work on my new computer. :frowning:

Offhand, I would note that a belief that there will be no evil in there hereafter (eventually), and that mankind will be collectively returned to sinlessness, is specifically universalistic and not annihilationistic (which the former could be) nor ECTistic (to coin a term. :sunglasses: ) There cannot be a “collective” return of “mankind” to sinlessness without also personal return to sinlessness of each person within humankind.

This does not exclude a belief that only the baptized will be saved, if Christ baptizes in Spirit-even/and-fire. Those already baptized or who accept it at resurrection will be saved, and the others won’t until they accept it.

Similarly, Gregory could hold the technical position that God might be just to damn any sinner for eternity, while also holding the position that eventually all sinners would be saved (this also being just, or perhaps merciful instead of just–I forget which way Gregory went on that issue. Hopefully the former. :slight_smile: )

Most or all of Gregory’s surviving work can be found in English here at the Documenta Catholica Omnia.

A nice 19th century English collection at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

#8

And so having hunted up Gregory’s Great Catechism, I find that this is exactly what he was teaching in chapter 35, from which the book that Wikipedia references was most likely referencing: that those who have not been baptized at the resurrection will receive the process of purification that leads them to understand their sins, repent of them, and be baptized.

I’ve included the whole file below in .doc format (downloaded from the Opera Omnia collection at Documenta Catholica Omnia site. But for ease of topical reference I’ll copy-paste the relevant material, too (with some bold emphases of my own).

If someone only looked at the opening sentence of chapter 36, they could also think Gregory meant to claim there was no salvation at all of those who have not been baptized first. But that isn’t true. Gregory is teaching at least as much as C. S. Lewis believed about post-mortem salvation (and notably he is very explicit about this salvation being still available to those still outside the Catholic sacraments, including those still unbaptized.) And elsewhere nearby Gregory argues that it is God’s nature (by virtue of being the omnipresent God) to seek and to complete the salvation of all sinners, whoever and wherever they are, and not to rest until this is accomplished. (Although his main purpose for bringing this up is to argue for the divine effectiveness of the sacraments by God’s power and grace.)
0330-0395,_Gregorius_Nyssenus,_The_Great_Catechism,_EN.doc (208 KB)

#9

Damn, that’s pretty cool. I need to read more of that guy. :confused:

So why do the Orthodox reject Purgatory again?

#10

Jason are you saying, “However, in the Great Catechism, Gregory suggests that while every human will be resurrected, salvation will only be accorded to the baptised.[32] While he believes that there will be no more evil in the hereafter, it is arguable that this does not preclude a belief that God might justly damn sinners for eternity.[33]” is just people trying to cast doubt on Gregory’s Universalism? :unamused:

#11

Alex,

The Wiki contributor by citation was picking it up from a book I don’t have access to; so I don’t know for sure what part of TGCh that book was referencing.

But I did find what the Great Catechism itself said on the matter (keeping in mind this wasn’t an officially approved Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church so far as I know–I would be far more amused if a pope and/or magisterium had signed off on it); and from the wording there I suspect I’ve found what the author was referencing.

BirdE,

Yes, one of the site founders (James Goetz) is a big fan of Gregory Nyssa. (Really, James ought to be the one commenting here. :slight_smile: )

I don’t know why some of the Eastern Orthodox don’t believe in purgatory, but they would either be misreading GregNyss here or would think he was just wrong.

#12

Meanwhile, on a list of indirect influences:

C. S. Lewis wasn’t only a huge fan of George MacDonald, he thought well of William Law, too (and quoted him on occasion).

The Three Big Bs of 20th century systematic theology (Barth, Bulgakov and Balthasar, for Old Protestant/Lutheran, Eastern/Russian Orthodox, and Roman Catholic theology respectively), each got as close as they could to universal reconciliation within the constraints (somewhat different in each case) that each believed they had to adhere to as teachers within their traditions. There is no telling how many people all over the world they’ve influenced together; but Balthasar was especially influential on the two most recent Popes (John Paul, and Benedict), both of whom personally knew and massively respected him, and both of whom made/are making curious inroads toward universal reconciliation in the Roman Catholic Church.

#13

Thank you very much for your very helpful input, Jason! :smiley:

I’ll get to your post later, BirdOfTheEgg!