Christianity Allows for the Possibility of Universal Salvation

From Wikipedia Entry on St. Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory was one of the earlier proponents of Christian universalism. Gregory argues that when Paul says that God will be "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28), this means that though some may need to undergo a long period of purification, eventually "no being will remain outside the number of the saved" and that "no being created by God will fall outside the Kingdom of God". Due to the unity of human nature in Christ "all, thanks to the union with one another, will be joined in communion with the Good, in Jesus Christ Our Lord". Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection results in "total salvation for human nature".

Gregory also described God's work this way: "His [God's] end is one, and one only; it is this: when the complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last—some having at once in this life been cleansed from evil, others having afterwards in the necessary periods been healed by the Fire, others having in their life here been unconscious equally of good and of evil—to offer to every one of us participation in the blessings which are in Him, which, the Scripture tells us, 'eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,' nor thought ever reached." That this is what Gregory believed and taught is affirmed by most scholars. A minority of scholars have argued that Gregory only affirmed the universal resurrection.

In the Life of Moses, Gregory writes that just as the darkness left the Egyptians after three days, perhaps redemption [ἀποκατάστασις] will be extended to those suffering in hell [γέεννα]. This salvation may not only extend to humans; following Origen, there are passages where he seems to suggest (albeit through the voice of Macrina) that even the demons will have a place in Christ's "world of goodness". Gregory's interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15:28 ("And when all things shall be subdued unto him ...") and Philippians 2:10 ("That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth") support this understanding of his theology.

Nevertheless, in the Great Catechism, Gregory suggests that while every human will be resurrected, salvation will only be accorded to the baptised, although he also states that others driven by their passions can be saved after being purified by fire. 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. 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. This interpretation of Gregory has recently been criticized, however. After all, at the end of chapter XXXV of the Great Catechism Gregory writes that those who have not been purified by water through baptism "must needs be purified by fire" so that "after long succeeding ages, their nature may be restored pure again to God".

Attempting to reconcile these disparate positions, Eastern Orthodox theologian Dr. Mario Baghos notes that "when taken at face value the saint seems to be contradicting himself in these passages; on the one hand he asserted the salvation of all and the complete eradication of evil, and, on the other, that the fire needed to purge evil is 'sleepless', i.e. everlasting. The only solution to this inconsistency is to view any allusion to universal salvation in St Gregory as an expression of God's intention for humanity, which is in fact attested to when his holy sister states that God has "one goal ... some straightway even in this life purified from evil, others healed hereafter through fire for the appropriate length of time." That we can choose either to accept or ignore this purification is confirmed by the saint's many exhortations that we freely undertake the virtuous path." Dr. Ilaria Ramelli has made the observation that for Gregory free will was compatible with universal salvation since every person would eventually accept the good having gone through purification. Nevertheless, some interpret Gregory as conceding that Judas and similar sinners will never be completely purified when he wrote, "that which never existed is to be preferred to that which has existed in such sin. For, as to the latter, on account of the depth of the ingrained evil, the chastisement in the way of purgation will be extended into infinity". However, Ramelli renders the original Greek "εἰς ἄπειρον παρατείνεται ἡ διὰ τῆς καθάρσεως κόλασις" as "the punishment provided for the purpose of purification will tend to an indefinite duration."

Other Church Fathers

Clement of Alexandria is often regarded as one of the first Christian universalists; he espoused a belief in the eventual salvation of every person (though not with the level of systematic clarity of his disciple Origen). Clement believed divine punishment to be corrective and remedial rather than merely retributive or destructive. He writes, "[God] destroys no one but gives salvation to all." "He bestows salvation on all mankind." "He indeed saves all universally—some as converted by punishments, others by voluntary submission with dignity of honor—that to Him every knee shall bow, both of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth; that is, angels, and men, and souls departed this life." "God's punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion; choosing rather the repentance than the death of a sinner." "I will grant that He punishes the disobedient, for punishment is for the good and advantage of him who is punished, for it is the correction of a refractory subject." "For all things are arranged with a view to the salvation of the universe by the Lord of the universe, both generally and particularly."

Origen believed that, eventually, the whole world would be converted to Christianity,[160] "since the world is continually gaining possession of more souls".[161] He believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was not yet come,[162] but that it was the duty of every Christian to make the eschatological reality of the kingdom present in their lives.[162] Origen is often believed to be a Universalist,[163] who suggested that all people might eventually attain salvation,[164][20][163] but only after being purged of their sins through "divine fire".[165] This, of course, in line of Origen's allegorical interpretation, was not literal fire, but rather the inner anguish of knowing one's own sins.[164][165]

Origen was careful to maintain that universal salvation was merely a possibility and not a definitive doctrine,[164] though he seemed strongly convinced that at least all human souls will be reunited to God in a final apokatastasis – the re-establishment of an original unity in creation – "because the end is always like the beginning" and because he believed all divine punishment to be medicinal.[166] It is certain that Origen rejected the Stoic doctrine of eternal return,[167] although he did posit the existence of a series of non-identical worlds.[168] Jerome quotes Origen as having allegedly written that "after aeons and the one restoration of all things, the state of Gabriel will be the same as that of the Devil, Paul's as that of Caiaphas, that of virgins as that of prostitutes".[163] However, Origen expressly states in his Letter to Friends in Alexandria that Satan and "those who are cast out of the kingdom of God" would not be included in the final salvation.[164][77] Moreover, Origen often described a quite traditional fiery punishment in his homilies, considering the doctrine vital for the Christians who are not yet spiritually mature. On the other hand, he thought it sometimes necessary to admit the medicinal character of divine punishment to refute the notion of a cruel God.[169]

Christian Universalism

Christian universalists disagree on whether hell exists. However, they do agree that if it does exist, the punishment there is corrective and remedial and does not last forever.

Purgatorial hell and patristic universalism

Purgatorial universalism was the belief of some of the early Church Fathers, especially Greek-speaking ones such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa. It asserts that the unsaved will undergo hell but that hell is remedial (neither everlasting nor purely retributive) according to key scriptures and that after purification or conversion all will enter heaven.

Fourth-century Christian theologian and bishop Diodorus of Tarsus wrote: "For the wicked there are punishments, not perpetual, however, lest the immortality prepared for them should be a disadvantage, but they are to be purified for a brief period according to the amount of malice in their works. They shall therefore suffer punishment for a short space, but immortal blessedness having no end awaits them ... the penalties to be inflicted for their many and grave sins are very far surpassed by the magnitude of the mercy to be shown to them."

Ilaria Ramelli, a scholar of the early Patristic history writes, "In the minds of some, universal salvation is a heretical idea that was imported into Christianity from pagan philosophies by Origen" (Template:C.). Ramelli argues that this view is mistaken and that Christian theologians were the first people to proclaim that all will be saved and that their reasons for doing so were rooted in their faith in Christ.

Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart makes the case on the basis of the earliest Christian writings, theological tradition, scripture, and logic, that if God is the good creator of all, he is the savior of all, without fail. In his book, That All Shall Be Saved, he calls opponents of the school, who believe that some or all people are condemned to eternal damnation, "infernalists".

Eternal hell in Christian history

Christian Universalists assert that the doctrine of eternal Hell was not a part of Christ's teachings nor even the early church, and that it was added in.Template:Self-published inline According to theologian Edward Beecher, in the first four centuries there were six main theological schools, and only one of them advocated the idea of eternal hell.

Origins of the idea of hell as eternal

Christian universalists point towards mistranslations of the Greek word Template:Lang (Template:Transliteration – an epoch of time), as giving rise to the idea of eternal hell. Dr. Ken Vincent writes "When it (Template:Transliteration) was translated into Latin Vulgate, Template:Transliteration became Template:Lang which means 'eternal'." He also states that the first written record of the idea of an eternal hell comes from Tertullian, who wrote in Latin.

The second major source of the idea of hell as eternal was the 4th-century theologian Augustine. According to author Steve Gregg, it was Tertullian's writings, plus Augustine's views and writings on eternal hell, which "overwhelmed" the other views of a temporary hell. First Augustine's views of hell were accepted in the early Latin Church, Up until the Reformation Augustine's view of hell as eternal was not questioned.

Mistranslation of the Greek word Template:Transliteration

About the word Template:Transliteration as having connotations of "age" or "temporal", the 19th-century theologian Marvin Vincent wrote:

Arguments against the idea of eternal hell

Author Thomas Talbott states that if one believes in the idea of eternal hell or that some souls will be destroyed, one must either let go of the idea that it is God's wish and desire to save all beings, or accept the idea that God wants to, but will not "successfully accomplish his will and satisfy his own desire in this matter".

Author David Burnfield defends the postmortem view that God continues to evangelize to people even after they die (1 Chronicles 16:34; Isaiah 9:2; Romans 8:35–39; Ephesians 4:8–9; 1 Peter 3:18–20; 4:6).

History

According to the New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1912), over the first five hundred years of Christian history there are records of at least six theological schools: four of these schools were Universalist (one each in Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa–Nisibis), one taught conditional immortality (in Ephesus), and the last taught eternal Hell (in Carthage or Rome). However, the Encyclopedia also notes that most contemporary scholars would take issue with classifying these early schools as Universalist.Template:Unreliable source?

An important figure in early American Christian Universalism was George de Benneville, a French Huguenot preacher and physician who was imprisoned for advocating Universalism and later emigrated to Pennsylvania where he continued preaching on the subject. De Benneville was noted for his friendly and respectful relationship with Native Americans and his pluralistic and multicultural view of spiritual truth which was well ahead of his time. One of his most significant accomplishments was helping to produce the Sauer Bible, the first German language Bible printed in America. In this Bible version, passages teaching universal reconciliation were marked in boldface.

Other significant early modern Christian Universalist leaders include Elhanan Winchester, a Baptist preacher who wrote several books promoting the universal salvation of all souls after a period in Purgatory, who founded the first Universalist church in Philadelphia, and founded a church that ministered to enslaved African Americans in South Carolina; Hosea Ballou, a Universalist preacher and writer in New England; and Hannah Whitall Smith, a writer and evangelist from a Quaker background who was active in the Holiness movement as well as the women's suffrage and temperance movements.

The Unity School of Christianity, founded in 1889 by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, has taught some Universalist beliefs such as God's total goodness, the divine nature of human beings, and the rejection of the traditional Christian belief that God condemns people to Hell.

In the early 20th century, some Primitive Baptists in Appalachia started espousing Universalist ideas. By 1924, these churches branched off to form the Primitive Baptist Universalists. They are often known as "No Hellers" and believe that temporal punishment and separation from God during life is the only hell.

Christus Victor is a book by Gustaf Aulén published in English in 1931, presenting a study of theories of atonement in Christianity. The original Swedish title is Den kristna försoningstanken ("The Christian Idea of the Atonement") published in 1930.Template:Sfn Aulén reinterpreted the classic ransom theory of atonement, which says that Christ's death is a ransom to the powers of evil, which had held humankind in their dominion. It is a model of the atonement that is dated to the Church Fathers, and it was the dominant theory of atonement for a thousand years,Template:Cn until Anselm of Canterbury supplanted it in the West with his satisfaction theory of atonement.

Aulén interpreted the ransom theory as a "victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil."Template:Sfn According to Pugh, "Ever since [Aulén's] time, we call these patristic ideas the Christus Victor way of seeing the cross."Template:Sfn It is sometimes known as the fishhook theory of atonement, since Church Fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa envisioned Christ as bait on a fishhook, luring Satan to take the bait and destroy himself.

Christus Victor

Christus Victor is a book by Gustaf Aulén published in English in 1931, presenting a study of theories of atonement in Christianity. The original Swedish title is Den kristna försoningstanken ("The Christian Idea of the Atonement") published in 1930. Aulén reinterpreted the classic ransom theory of atonement, which says that Christ's death is a ransom to the powers of evil, which had held humankind in their dominion. It is a model of the atonement that is dated to the Church Fathers, and it was the dominant theory of atonement for a thousand years,^{[citation needed]} until Anselm of Canterbury supplanted it in the West with his satisfaction theory of atonement.

Aulén interpreted the ransom theory as a "victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil." According to Pugh, "Ever since [Aulén's] time, we call these patristic ideas the Christus Victor way of seeing the cross." It is sometimes known as the fishhook theory of atonement, since Church Fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa envisioned Christ as bait on a fishhook, luring Satan to take the bait and destroy himself.

Aulen's book, Christus Victor

Atonement theories

In his book, Aulén identifies three main types of atonement theories:Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

• The earliest was what Aulén called the "classic" view of the atonement, more commonly known as the ransom theory, or since Aulén's work, it is known sometimes as the "Christus Victor" theory: this is the theory that Adam and Eve made humanity subject to the Devil during the fall, and that God, in order to redeem humanity, sent Christ as a "ransom" or "bait" so that the Devil, not knowing Christ could not die permanently, would kill him, and thus lose all right to humanity following the resurrection.
• A second theory is the "Latin" or "objective" view, more commonly known as satisfaction theory, beginning with Anselmian satisfaction (that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind, satisfying the demands of God's honor) and later developed by Protestants as penal substitution (that Christ is punished instead of humanity, thus satisfying the demands of justice so that God can justly forgive).
• A third is the "subjective" theory, commonly known as the moral influence view, that Christ's passion was an act of exemplary obedience which affects the intentions of those who come to know about it. This view was put forward in opposition to Anselm's view by Peter Abelard.Template:Sfn

Aulén argues that the "classic view" was the predominant view of the early church for the first thousand years of church history, and was supported by nearly every Church Father including Irenaeus, Origen of Alexandria, and Augustine of Hippo, to name a few. A major shift occurred, Aulén says, when Anselm of Canterbury published his Cur Deus Homo around 1097 AD which marked the point where the predominant understanding of the atonement shifted from the classic view to the satisfaction view in the Roman Catholic Church, and later within Protestantism. The Eastern Orthodox Church still holds to the atonement view put forward by Irenaeus called "recapitulation", wherein Jesus became what we are so that we could become what he is.

Christus Victor

Aulén argues that theologians have incorrectly concluded that the early Church Fathers held a ransom theory of atonement. Aulén argues that the Church Fathers' theory was not that the crucifixion was the payment of a ransom to the devil, but rather that it represented the liberation of humanity from the bondage of sin, death, and the devil. As the term Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) indicates, the idea of "ransom" should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more in the terms of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery, and sickness, of sin.

Role of the Trinity

Aulén states that the chief distinction between Christus Victor and the satisfaction view is the contrary emphasis given to the Trinity and the Law. The satisfaction view, Aulén claims, contains a 'divine discontinuity' and a 'legal continuity' while Christus Victor emphasizes a 'divine continuity' and a 'legal discontinuity'. He points to the emerging theology of penance in the Latin Church as the root of Anselm's ideas, particularly in the writings of Cyprian. In Anselm's logical but revolutionary extension of penance theology, God is unable or unwilling to pardon humanity without having his Kingship honored by a payment of blood, later this would take the form of "penal substitution", the Reformation idea that God's justice, not his honor, is at stake in the atonement. Since only a man can fulfill mankind's obligations to the Law and to God, Christ must become a man in order to offer perfect penance to God. He does this by satisfying the demands of the Law for a sinless life and by suffering the wrath of the Father for past sins. Aulén takes exception to this model, arguing that the incarnation (and also the resurrection) becomes a legal exercise, a piece of a theological equation based on law theories.

Aulén goes on to argue that Christus Victor reverses this view by uniting Jesus and His Father during the Crucifixion in a subversive condemnation of the unjust powers of darkness. This is followed by the natural emphasis of Christus Victor: the Father's vindication of Jesus in his victorious and bodily resurrection. Advocates of the satisfaction view do not agree with Aulén's characterization, arguing that the satisfaction model does not, in fact, create opposition between the Father and the Son (there has been less disagreement on the "legal continuity" or emphasis of satisfaction atonement, although J.I. Packer has notably argued for a version of satisfaction theory with less legal emphasis). In their view, the "divine opposition" is only apparent since the Father desires reconciliation with mankind and Jesus willingly offers himself as a penal substitute. By contrast, Christus Victor depicts Christ's sacrifice, not as a legal offering to God in order to placate his justice, but as the decisive moment in a war against the powers of darkness; the law included.

Writings of the Church Fathers

Aulén points to the writings of Paul and the Church Fathers as examples of early Christianity's view of the Law as an enemy which must be defeated in order for mankind's salvation to be secured. He seeks to demonstrate that the penance systems of satisfaction theory and penal substitution place an undue emphasis on man's obligation to offer payment to God and on God's obligation to Law. Instead by suffering a death that, before the Law, meant an accursed status, Christ, instead of satisfying an obligation, overthrew the power of the Law, since its condemnation of a perfect man was unjust. Furthermore, death, sin, and the Devil (personalized forces in Christus Victor), are overthrown since Jesus' subsequent resurrection breaks the dominion they once held over human life. Since the resurrection is a mark of the Father's favor despite the Law's curse on crucified men, the atonement, far from reinforcing the Law, deprives and subverts the Law of its ability to condemn. Thus God the Father and God the Son are not set at odds by the cross with the first in the role of Judge and the second in the role of sinner, but are united in seeking the downfall of the Devil's system of sin, death, and Law that enslaves humanity. This view, Aulén maintains, keeps from the errors of penance systems emphasizing Law and man, and reveals the unity within the Trinity's redemptive plan and the freedom of the forgiveness shown to us by God through Christ.

The Incarnation

Unlike the satisfaction doctrine view of the atonement (the "Latin" view) which is rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the classic view of the Early church (Christus Victor) is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Aulén argues that the Christus Victor view of the atonement is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the Powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin.

As Gustav Aulén writes: "The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.Template:Sfn

Development of the Christus Victor view after Aulén

The Christus Victor theory is becoming increasingly popular with both paleo-orthodox evangelicals because of its connection to the early Church fathers, and with liberal Christians and peace churches such as the Anabaptist Mennonites because of its subversive nature, seeing the death of Jesus as an exposure of the cruelty and evil present in the worldly powers that rejected and killed him, and the resurrection as a triumph over these powers.Template:Sfn As Marcus Borg writes, Template:Quote

The Mennonite theologian J. Denny Weaver, in his book The Nonviolent Atonement and again recently in his essay "The Nonviolent Atonement: Human Violence, Discipleship and God", traces the further development of the Christus Victor theory (or as he calls it "Narrative Christus Victor") into the liberation theology of South America, as well as feminist and black theologies of liberation.Template:Sfn

References