tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post236062535308171610..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Divine EvilRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46481553722599060402009-04-29T12:27:00.000-04:002009-04-29T12:27:00.000-04:00You can't finesse your way out of this. The concep...You can't finesse your way out of this. The concept is dead simple: In Hell people suffer terribly, forever. That's what we're told. There's no room for theological hand-waving. But Hell itself is God's idea. If He didn't want people in there, He would have arranged the Universe differently. You can't blame the people who are in there. The concept we are given is that <B>God</B> has decided that certain people should suffer terribly forever. And none of these people ever caused anyone else to suffer terribly <I>forever</I>. What your post illustrates is that you don't have a problem with some people suffering terribly forever. You say it's <I>fair</I>; that they <I>deserve</I> it. What a noble Christian sentiment!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43455398839335441422007-08-04T14:47:00.000-04:002007-08-04T14:47:00.000-04:00I know that you never explicitly stated that it is...I know that you never explicitly stated that it is a legitimate strand of Orthodoxy, which is why I used the term “implicitly.” Surely you see how it wouldn’t be difficult to read your comments as implying as much. Given that an Ecumenical council condemned a universalistic gloss on the apokatastasis and with it universalism, I can’t see how Orthodoxy can be said to tolerate universalism. I think both the statements you cite are confused. As I noted previously Ware conflates concepts and my best is that he is influenced by the Balthasar type stuff. Granted that Ware hasn’t been censored but he isn’t exaclty yelling blatant and unequivocal universalism from the rooftops. As I pointed out before, I think he is confused. I have no problem in saying that a bishop may be wrong or materially heterodox on some such matter so it is not out of any fear that I might impugn Orthodoxy by doing so. I am trying to be charitable and fair and it seems to me that the great populizer that Ware is, is confused on the matter or influenced by non-Orthodox teaching.<BR/><BR/>As for Solovyov, the Romans like to tar us with him as well, though the man was probably a gnostic, which is why his Newmanesque views on the development of doctrine and consequently his pro-papal stance gain him no traction among the Orthodox in terms of apologetic value for Catholics. (See http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/was-soloviev-orthodox/) The same goes for his supposed apologetic value for Protestants. A number of his views and those of others that you mention were censored by the Russians some time ago.<BR/><BR/>As for the Blackwell dictionary, it is first a dictionary and a handy reference but hardly the last word. First, the term is a biblical term/concept (Matt 17:11, 19:28) as well as being found in many early fathers and witnesses. The dictionary for example can be read to give the impression that Sophiaology is a continuation of Maximus’ “modified” form of it, which is in fact false.<BR/><BR/>I don’t think I accused you of making the idea up, but I did wish to point out that you played off of mistakes made by others. I can’t see how one can say that since Gregory wasn’t personally condemned post mortem that Orthodoxy is tolerant of universalism. There is a difference between condemning a teaching and the person, when for example exculpatory reasons might be in play, for example when one is explicitly speculating rather than writing dogmatically. I would think that the condemnation of the idea in any case would be sufficient. Orthodoxy doesn’t claim that each and every Father got it all right. Consequently I can’t see how it follows that since Gregory goofed, (he goofed on monothelitism on Jn 6:38 as well for instance), that that shows that Orthodoxy is tolerant of heresy. If it showed anything it would show that the Christian Church in its historical manifestation tolerated it, but that will tar lots of groups and not just the Orthodox, seemingly making the argumentative victory rather hollow. In any case, the idea of a personalistic restoration was condemned which is why the citation you give from the dictionary is wrong. The difference is that Origen was personally condemned and Gregory wasn’t, even though the same teaching was.<BR/><BR/>I don’t think I cast the matter in all or nothing terms. I simply noted what appeared to me to be special pleading. I don’t see why I can’t (and in fact do on Orthodox principles) appeal to the same or similar principles that you do? Some fathers are better and authoritative when writing on some subjects, which is why say the writings of Cyril were ecumenically approved on the hypostatic union or Augustine against the Manicheans. By the same principle, I don’t see how you can tar Orthodoxy with being tolerant of universalism or implying that it is a “strand” in Orthodox tradition unless of course Orthodoxy has no recourse to similar principles to the ones you invoked. But we do and I did.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your concerns over my health.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23145236025765477892007-08-03T20:00:00.000-04:002007-08-03T20:00:00.000-04:00“At worst, if he [Ware] is heretical, then I can s...“At worst, if he [Ware] is heretical, then I can see no way how that supports your contention that universalism is implicitly a legitimate strand in the Orthodox tradition. In fact, it would seem to support just the opposite.”<BR/><BR/>I never said that universalism is a “legitimate” strand in the Orthodox tradition. I didn’t venture an opinion on that one way or the other.<BR/><BR/>All I said is that “in addition, there is a universalist strand (which I reject) in Eastern Orthodox tradition…Eastern Orthodoxy is tolerant of universalism.”<BR/><BR/>I think the quotes from Ware and The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity justify those statements.<BR/><BR/>How “legitimate” or “illegitimate that strand may be is, itself, a point of contention among Orthodox authorities. But I didn’t make this up.<BR/><BR/>I also don’t have to render a value-judgment on whether Ware is “heretical” by Orthodox standards.<BR/><BR/>But I think it’s fair to say that Orthodoxy is “tolerant” of universalism, for the condemnations have been rather selective. Unlike Origen, Nyssa is still one of the Church Fathers, is he not?<BR/><BR/>Ware has not been censured or sanctioned or demoted or excommunicated by his church, has he?<BR/><BR/>Is universalism the official teaching of Orthodoxy? Not that I can see. But my original statements remain intact.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I regard universalism as heretical by my own standards. <BR/><BR/>“Furthermore, I find it odd that at times you wish to own the Fathers as part of Protestant history and then disown them as part of Orthodoxy when they teach something obviously wrong. The two Gregorys as Fathers and Origen as a witness as just as much a part of your tradition by your own lights as they are mine and so I can't see how the charge of universalism can be leveled at the Orthodox without special pleading on your part, unless of course you wish to retreat from the claim that pre-reformation figures are part of your church in any meaningful sense. Perhaps you can clarify your thinking here.”<BR/><BR/>You’ve cast this in all-or-nothing terms, as if I must either accept the Greek Fathers as a unit or else reject the Greek Fathers as a unit.<BR/><BR/>Since that is not even how I approach Reformed theologians, it is not how I approach the Greek Fathers. <BR/><BR/>I’m eclectic. I go with whoever has the best arguments. Some theologians are better than others. What is more, the same theologian can be better on one topic and worse on another.<BR/><BR/>The Greek Fathers are not authority figures for me. By the same token, Calvin, Owen, Turretin, and Warfield are not authority figures for me. I don’t accept or reject them in toto. <BR/><BR/>I see a remnant running through church history. Moreover, an individual can have faulty theology—up to a point—and still be saved.<BR/><BR/>For me, the inner core of the church is the elect. The church also has a certain amount of external machinery. And since people come in families, while election also cuts across family lines, the church is bound to be, in some measure, a mixed multitude.<BR/><BR/>When I speak of “the church,” I don’t mean Protestants. I mean the people of God from Genesis to Revelation. The “true” church is variously instantiated, in varying degrees, in time and place. No doubt there are many individual Orthodox believers who exemplify the true church. But I’d never identify Orthodoxy with the true church. And some traditions are truer to the true church than others (e.g. the Reformed tradition).<BR/><BR/>BTW, hope your health is on the mend.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26127981057927524202007-08-03T15:47:00.000-04:002007-08-03T15:47:00.000-04:00I wanted the link to examine Bp Ware's comments in...I wanted the link to examine Bp Ware's comments in full. But that aside, no bishop is of himself infallible in Orthodoxy, and so Ware has gotten other things wrong. I am not suprised that he gets this wrong. It seems he slides from the harmless, at least by Orthodox lights, disposition to be hopeful regarding the salvation of anyone one person (the devil and demons excepting given their fixity in vice), even post mortem (forgiveness in the age to come mind you) given the possibility of repentence however unlikely to the thesis that salvation is always open ended into eternity. The two are not the same. The first is beneficial and stems judgmentalism while the second is clearly universalism.<BR/><BR/>At worst, if he is heretical, then I can see no way how that supports your contention that universalism is implicitly a legitimate strand in the Orthodox tradition. In fact, it would seem to support just the opposite.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I find it odd that at times you wish to own the Fathers as part of Protestant history and then disown them as part of Orthodoxy when they teach something obviously wrong. The two Gregorys as Fathers and Origen as a witness as just as much a part of your tradition by your own lights as they are mine and so I can't see how the charge of universalism can be leveled at the Orthodox without special pleading on your part, unless of course you wish to retreat from the claim that pre-reformation figures are part of your church in any meaningful sense. Perhaps you can clarify your thinking here.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66951993550904009622007-08-03T12:26:00.000-04:002007-08-03T12:26:00.000-04:00The second link is to an article by Metropolitan T...The second link is to an article by Metropolitan Timothy Ware. So I guess he's a heretic as well.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22617325628867604992007-08-03T10:53:00.000-04:002007-08-03T10:53:00.000-04:00Origenism was condemned as a heresy by a number of...Origenism was condemned as a heresy by a number of Ecumenical Councils so while that view was expressed in various forms by Nyssa, Origen and Clement, it was officially condemned. I supposed you missed the section about its condemnation later on in the article?<BR/><BR/>As for Berdyaev and other Russians, their advocation of an apokatastasis via Sophiaology (Russian Platonism) was censured by the Russian Church if I am not mistaken.<BR/><BR/>As for the Catholic Ency, it is rather old and not exactly reliable or fair in dealing with things Eastern (I seriously doubt you take it as reliable on things Protestant for that matter). Notice for example that it charges Maximus with Origenism, when Maximus was the definition critic that brought the final condemnation down on Origenistic Universalism.<BR/><BR/>As for the second, link it is incomplete and I can't find what you are referring to. The latter quote seems to be influenced by the same kind of Origenism resurregent among Catholics like Balthasar that made its way into the pages of First Things. <BR/><BR/>In any case, given that universalism was been condemned by the Church, it seems unfair or at least ambiguous to say that there is a universalist strand in the Orthodox *tradition* unles of course we wish to speak of the Universalist strand in the Calvinist tradition in New England.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3460046192835216542007-08-03T09:59:00.000-04:002007-08-03T09:59:00.000-04:00I was thinking of theologians like Clement of Alex...I was thinking of theologians like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Nikolai Berdyaev.<BR/><BR/>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm<BR/><BR/>"Hell exists as a final possibility, but several of the Fathers have none the less believed that in the end all will be reconciled to God. It is heretical to say that all must be saved, for this is to deny free will; but it is legitimate to hope that all may be saved. Until the Last Day comes, we must not despair of anyone’s salvation, but must long and pray for the reconciliation of all without exception. No one must be excluded from our loving intercession. ‘What is a merciful heart?’ asked Isaac the Syrian. ‘It is a heart that burns with love for the whole of creation, for men, for the birds, for the beasts, for the demons, for all creatures’ (Mystic Treatises, edited by A. J. Wensinck, Amsterdam, 1923, p. 341). Gregory of Nyssa said that Christians may legitimately hope even for the redemption of the Devil."<BR/><BR/>http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htmstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87479647227524104682007-08-02T22:12:00.000-04:002007-08-02T22:12:00.000-04:00You wrote :"In addition, there is a universalist s...You wrote :"In addition, there is a universalist strand (which I reject) in Eastern Orthodox tradition."<BR/><BR/>While Lewis knows the truth about hell now, I am not clear on why you would think the above is true. Can you give me some reason for thinking it is?Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.com