Christian Universalists of the first 500 years.

[Craig]

For those who may not know, I actually update the Wikipedia entry of Universal Reconciliation and several others. I make sure all the information is researchable and able to be traced back to credible sources.

So some interesting tidbits for you, here is a list of the first 500 years of Christian Universalists, it might be an interesting study to research these people's lives and find some very interesting similarities...


* Pantaenus, first of the Didascalia (?-216AD)
* Clement of Alexandria (150-220AD)
* Origen of Alexandria (185-254AD)
* Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Wonder Worker (213-270AD)
* Pamphilus of Caesarea (?-309AD)
* Eusebius of Caesarea, the Friend (263–339AD)
* Lactantius (250-325AD)
* Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (297-373AD)
* Marcellus of Ancyra (?-374AD)
* Titus, Bishop of Bostra (?-378AD)
* Didymus the Blind (309-395AD)
* Macrina the Younger (327-390AD)
* Basil the Great (329-379AD)
* Gregory of Nazianzen (330-391AD)
* Diodore of Tarsus (?-390AD)
* Gregory of Nyssa (335-390AD)
* Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (338–397AD)
* John Chrysostom (347–407AD)
* Tyrannius Rufinus (345-410AD)

What I find odd, perhaps many never thought about it due to genetic fallacy, is that our current Christian Soteriology belief in who is saved and who is today is not what many in the church had believed prior to the 6th Century (500 AD). I blame this lack of knowledge on the 'need to know' mentality of many Bible Schools, ministers, and denominational hierarchies concerning church history and doctrinal biblical knowledge. I found after studying this for a few years, that because people don't know, they assume that someone knows and trust what they are told is true. This is called a genetic fallacy.

Now some interesting tidbits concerning some of these names.

One of these names is "Origen of Alexanderia". He was, according to church rumor and perhaps if you asked your Christian friends supposable declared a Heretic. Problem with this is, it isn't true. As recently as last year Pope Bendict XVI celebrated the life of Origen not condemning him or his views, but exalting him as a chiefly important Christian figure crucial to all Christianity in the importance of Christian thought. (http://www.zenit.org/article-19466?l=english)

There are some problems when it comes to the renouncing of Origen.

The first is the fact the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which is responsible for 15 anthama's against Origen, has been contested as even being an official and authorized Ecumenical Council. It was established not by the Pope, but the Emperor Justinian, because of the Pope's resistance to it. In order for a Ecumenical Council to be official, it needed to be confirmed by the Pope, and Pope Vigilius wanted nothing to do with it.

The second is fact the Fifth Ecumenical Council, did not address Origen or his views including Universalism. It should also be noted that the Fifth Ecumenical Council addressed what was called "The Three Chapters" and was against a form of Origenism which truly had nothing to do with Origen and Origenist views. In fact, Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), and Gregory the Great(590-604) were only aware the Fifth Council specifically dealt with the Three Chapters and make no mention of Origenism or Universalism, nor spoke as if they knew of its condemnation even though Gregory the Great was greatly opposed to the belief of universalism and agreed on eternal damnation over Apokatastasis.

The third, Emperor Justinian chose the theory of eternal damnation over Apokatastasis and was very forceful in bringing the bishops and priests over to his belief suffering indignities at the hands of the civil authority losing or nearly losing their lives.

The facts that Origen's condemnation was done not by the Church but by the word of an Emperor with his own agenda, protested by the Eastern Bishops, not made official by a Western Pope, makes it pretty difficult to use as evidence that Origen's views were heretical.

However, despite these facts, the reason it upheld it's claim as being a legitimate condemnation, is because of the third fact : If you didn't agree, you were killed by the authority in charge. As a result of this false accusation against Origen, and a false declaration of Heresy concerning his beliefs, many of the people were persecuted and killed wrongly.

A second name on this list is, "Clement of Alexandria". He was the teacher of Origen and is counted officially as one of the early Church Fathers. His views nor his beliefs were anthamized even though, like Origen his pupil, he believed in Universal Salvation for all mankind and introduced it to Origen.

A third name on this list is, "Gregory of Nyssa". He was a well-known a known Universalist and like Clement, he too was never condemned and is officially a Church Father. He was additionally declared "the father of fathers" by the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 797 AD.

So when studying and learning about Christian Soteriology, many people do not know that Christian Universalism is not heresy, nor is it blasphemy. The argument of Orthodoxy is a moot point as a result. Whether orthodox then or now, it was once held as an orthodox view in Christianity; whether orthodox then or now, it is considered hetrodoxy which is acceptable doctrine; whether orthodoxy then or now, it is not heresy or blasphemy as some would like to declare.

[Michele]

This is some very good info Craig.  Well done! :thumbsup:  I noticed your name the other day under external links......when I was searching through "Universalism" on Wikipedia.  I thought you may have contributed to the information.

I've noticed that you know a lot about Origen.  At one time you pointed out that he believed in a type of reincarnation which is quite different from the today's mainstream beliefs about reincarnation.  Can you expand on this?

Also, do you see the Catholic church ever embracing the true meaning of its name (Universal)....do you see this taking place some time in the near future....and if so, how do you see this impacting the world??

[martincisneros]

As recently as last year Pope Bendict XVI celebrated the life of Origen not condemning him or his views, but exalting him as a chiefly important Christian figure crucial to all Christianity in the importance of Christian thought. (http://www.zenit.org/article-19466?l=english)

That's interesting, considering that Pope Benedict XVI is firm on the point of eternal punishment, whereas his predecessor, Pope John Paul II leaned towards UR.  But then again, the info that I emailed Gary that he posted on the front of Tentmaker about the Second Vatican Council might mean that Pope Benedict XVI is trying to take a firm stand on righteousness knowing that the media's going to "sound bite" what he says.  It's a fallacy to think that taking an ET stand is a stand for righteousness, but some people haven't thought it through on how it's a denial of a part of the record that God has given of His Son.  And some people are lazy and prefer just to say "you'll go to Hell" or "you're going to Hell," than to have to deal with people that generally won't listen to anything else.

In order for a Ecumenical Council to be official, it needed to be confirmed by the Pope, and Pope Vigilius wanted nothing to do with it.

I'd heard that that Pope was leery of it, but I didn't know he was actually opposed to it.

The facts that Origen's condemnation was done not by the Church but by the word of an Emperor with his own agenda, protested by the Eastern Bishops, not made official by a Western Pope, makes it pretty difficult to use as evidence that Origen's views were heretical.

But...but....but....

(Just kidding)



On the one hand, regarding the Soteriology issue, I do believe that the Bible teaches that you can know where you stand.  And if it's a ministry of reconciliation, according to St. Paul, then there comes a point where either you're reconciled or you're not.  But it's stupidity to say that anyone has irreconcileable differences with the Lord.  I'm not sure if it's so much the "need to know" that's forced Bible schools to dogmatize, but the yearning to walk in every other promise of the Scriptures even if the Universal Restoration is regarded as heretical.  As much as the ET fallacy, it's a lot of the "promises of the Word" theology that makes people want to cut very narrow, firm, and clearly visible lines on where they and others stand.  They often forget that when you start believing, then that's when you were saved.  Duh!!  I don't have to preach a magical new birth ceremony for you to suddenly become a new creature in Christ.  The second you cling to Him for ANYTHING, He's able to start moving in, cleaning out the old and bringing in the New.  That's when He starts preparing an encounter with His Holy Spirit that'll make you a judge and a deliverer in this life, analogous in the spirit to the judges/deliverers in the book of Judges where natural earth-bound conflicts were concerned.

[Craig]

I've noticed that you know a lot about Origen.  At one time you pointed out that he believed in a type of reincarnation which is quite different from the today's mainstream beliefs about reincarnation.  Can you expand on this?

Since much of Origen's works were destroyed by later people who thought his works were heretical, not much has survived of his originals, but those who had his originals quoted him word for word when they talked about him. It is from this, the repeated and acknowledged by many many many early Church Father's in their own writings, that we have some idea what Origen believed. I do not know for sure what he believed, I can only gather.

He believed that it is in every person's intrinsic innate nature that we all desire perfection, good and love. He may have believed that we have existed prior to our incarnation, as our previous self. To gain some clarity on this, it is a lot like the movie "Ground Hog Day", except instead of reliving the same day over and over, we live the same life over and over. Because of that intrinsic innate nature of desire placed in our hearts, we continue to live unto perfection each time. Sin, is actually our way of trying to attain perfection, good, and love for ourselves but since we are not omnipotent, omniscient,  etc. we have no way of knowing that our sin actually prevents us from attaining that which we truly desire. So no matter how much a person rebels, and thinks they are doing opposite, they are doing it in order to achieve what they perceived would give them perfection, good and love but fail. For sure he did not believe in re-incarnation in the way the Eastern religions believe. He argued against this actually.

[Paul Hazelwood]

oops wrong thread

[1beggar]

---

[Michele]

I've noticed that you know a lot about Origen.  At one time you pointed out that he believed in a type of reincarnation which is quite different from the today's mainstream beliefs about reincarnation.  Can you expand on this?

Since much of Origen's works were destroyed by later people who thought his works were heretical, not much has survived of his originals, but those who had his originals quoted him word for word when they talked about him. It is from this, the repeated and acknowledged by many many many early Church Father's in their own writings, that we have some idea what Origen believed. I do not know for sure what he believed, I can only gather.

He believed that it is in every person's intrinsic innate nature that we all desire perfection, good and love. He may have believed that we have existed prior to our incarnation, as our previous self. To gain some clarity on this, it is a lot like the movie "Ground Hog Day", except instead of reliving the same day over and over, we live the same life over and over. Because of that intrinsic innate nature of desire placed in our hearts, we continue to live unto perfection each time. Sin, is actually our way of trying to attain perfection, good, and love for ourselves but since we are not omnipotent, omniscient,  etc. we have no way of knowing that our sin actually prevents us from attaining that which we truly desire. So no matter how much a person rebels, and thinks they are doing opposite, they are doing it in order to achieve what they perceived would give them perfection, good and love but fail. For sure he did not believe in re-incarnation in the way the Eastern religions believe. He argued against this actually.

Thank you for your reply Craig.  :icon_flower: Hmmmm....I'm just thinking how strange it would be to live the same life over and over again (in different ways) until we reach what we see as "perfection".  I've thought about this before, and could see this is a possibility.  It would explain de ja vu........