The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Universalism and Death

patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed … jeff-cook/

Anyone read this?

Yes, I have read Universalism and Death (by Jeff Cook). I read Patheos all the time. And the author is an Annihilationist. I will comment on a few statements.

Article author

My response

Not if we take the Eastern Orthodox view of heaven and hell as states. See Basic Orthodox teachings on hell

Given that expression and my views as an inclusivist

. Wiki - inclusivism would define inclusivism like this:

And Got Questions - inclusivism like this:

, one could have both a purgative and an annihilation viewpoint that could coexist:

How do we experience God’s love in hell?

or

So we might have all being saved or a majority being saved - and free will is preserved.

Article author

My response

Actually, there are three, if we take the position of Joshua Ryan Butler.

Or (in the The Mercy of Hell? A Review of The Skeletons in God’s Closet (Part 1))

More on this in the interview Facing the Skeletons in God’s Closet or A Response to Joshua Ryan Butler’s The Skeletons in God’s Closet

Article author

First, though I am passionate about the intellectual and ethical failures of the Traditional View of Hell, I do not feel the same way toward the Purgatorial View.

My response
I’m glad you are considering it.

Yeah I saw this earlier today. I’ve been having a couple of discussions in the comments section actually.

I am having a hard time following the idea that life on earth is purgatorial and the idea that annihilation is the “wider arms” as he put it.

The eastern orthodox view of heaven and hellis great. love it.

I dont see how anyone could hold that in an anihilationist reality a majority could be saved and freewill presrved. An anihilationist who believes the fire will bring repentence for some is not really an anihilationist, hes a quasi-somethng or another :astonished:)

The only issue I have with inclusivism as you described it is that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father, so while other ways may have some truth, some more some less, at the point they glorify any other name they are adversaries, and at the point where they may contain some wisdom- all that wisdom and truth will be subsumed in Jesus on that Day when the veils are removed and the “ephiphania” of Christ happens to all.

The problem, Eagles Way, is we really don’t know how folks will react to God’s overwhelming love. That’s where free will comes in. God doesn’t force that choice.

If we are Christian and/or fully forgiven, we might experience God’s love fully.
If we cooperate with it and are not fully redeemed or Christian, it might be purgatory.
If we continue to resist it, it might consume us (i.e. annihilation).

Scripturally, one can argue on both sides, for a purgatory and an annihilation view of fire. Why can’t fire be both, depending on how we respond to it? God doesn’t force that choice on us. In fact, if we are Open Theists, he might not even know the final outcome.

Let’s look at this Orthodox View of Heaven and Hell

Those who died rejecting God might experience him differently - like the Catholic purgatory and the Protestant annihilation. Although the purgatory aspect could be much different from what Roman Catholic theologians envision. It could be akin to the Robins Williams movie What Dreams May Come (film).

Let’s return to Orthodox View of Heaven and Hell

Or think of this in terms of alchemy

and refiners fire

Maybe the matter is already gold and no fire is needed. If a refiners fire is needed, it refines the impurities, in order to transform matter into gold. But if the matter resists the fire and the temperature is too hot, it destroys it.

This is how we differ. But this difference is not overwhelming, compared to those who are exclusivists and have a traditional view of eternal hell. How does Toy Story 3 end theologically? See Toy Story 3 and the Afterlife by 2 Friars and a Fool.

Here’s his next article - Universalism and Our Subpar World? patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed … jeff-cook/

[tag]Randylkemp[/tag] I’ve got few questions for you. Today I’ve read an article by George Metallinos about the Orthodox view of heaven
and hell. He says (I’m abbreviating a lot) that after death everyone is exposed to God’s presence, and it is either everlasting joy or everlasting
anguish, depending on whether we love God or hate him. No mercy after death, just heaven or hell (which Metallinos says are both the same
uncreated place) immediately and forever.

Do you think I might have the right end of his view?
Do Orthodox vary much in their views of the afterlife?
Do any of them allow the possibility of universal restoration?
I think that’s enough to spoil your Sunday. (smiley needed but don’t know how!) Simple answers if possible please. (ditto)

Nick Hawthorn

Hi, Nick. Let me answer your questions with simple answers. If you wish some references, I can also provide them.

The Eastern Orthodox look on heaven and hell as being in God’s presence. Hence, they see heaven and hell as states - not places. This is a viewpoint I agree with.
If by varying you mean their conceptions of heaven and hell? Then their views about what it’s like is as varied as any Protestant or Roman Catholic. Or perhaps any member on this forum.
Yes. Eastern Orthodoxy is probably the Christian branch most open to universal restoration as a possibility. It’s based upon the works of some early church fathers, their view of God’s mercy and sin, etc. In fact Geoffrey on this forum also belongs to Eastern Orthodoxy. And in a recent article I’ve found, it says most Eastern Orthodox scholars embrace inclusivism.

Perhaps Geoffrey would like to add to my input?

Hany Mina Mikhail is my favourite Orthodox teacher. He is Coptic Orthodox.
He teaches the Orthodox understanding of divine justice as opposed to the Catholic and Protestant position. He opposes the penal substitution theory. Here is the first in a series of 12 lectures:

youtube.com/watch?v=D28MWNYGYAU

Thanks Randy. *Varied" views on the afterlife must be the norm everywhere.

Thanks Paidion. I haven’t started on that 12-lecture series, at least not yet.

Sadly, yes.

Happily, yes.

I am Eastern Orthodox, and I have read over 1,700 pages of the Orthodox Church’s liturgy. The words of the liturgy are the words of the Church. Universalism is all over the place in those 1,700 pages. I would bet good money that I could pick any page at random, start reading, and come to an affirmation of universalism within 10 pages (at most). In fact, sometimes the affirmations occur several times on a page, and/or on several consecutive pages. The overall tone and tenor of the liturgy is universalistic. There isn’t much there to hang non-universalism on. There are some (comparatively few) harsh passages in the liturgies of the Great Fast, but none of them is a clear teaching of non-universalism. Universalism is baldly and bluntly stated in the liturgies so many times that it must be in there literally hundreds of times in those 1,700 pages.

I therefore conclude that the teaching of the Orthodox Church is universalism. This isn’t to deny that there are plenty of non-universalist Orthodox believers, both today and in the past. But none of them (even the very greatest of saints) is the Church. We are each merely sons of the Church, and therefore each of us is fallible. In any case, the Orthodox liturgies are the only “official” teaching of the Orthodox Church. Every other Orthodox writing is only the opinion of the author.