One would think that the Scripture’s teaching that reprobates will be eternally damned is uncontroversial. However, those with itching ears are liable to be deceived by the oldest lie in recorded history: “Surely, you will not die” (Gen 3:4). Believing this lie, they doubt the clear words of Jesus Christ Himself who teaches that the damned will be told, “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:41).
God teaches the same through the Apostles. Rev 20:10 teaches that, “The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” 2 Thes 1:7-9 states that the “Lord Jesus” will take “vengeance on those who do not know God” who “shall be punished with everlasting destruction.”
And so, apart from a consensus of God’s people teaching the contrary, it would seem that the argument is settled.
However, it is not. We have very intelligent, but sadly demonically deceived, men claiming that the alleged teaching of a few saints (though this is questionable) not only casts doubt upon the majority teaching of the Church, but actually gives us grounds to believe that God will save everyone eventually; i.e. universalism. One of these writers goes so far as to add Origen to the list of “saints,”and asserts he was never anathematized by an ecumenical council. These same voices cry out that because the Church has allegedly never settled the issue, that they may legitimately hold out the hope that they are correct in repeating the serpent’s lie.
Interestingly enough, anyone may easily dispense with both of their lies by citing the indisputably ecumenical Council of Nicea II. I will put additional passages in an appendix, but I will cite two passages that definitively address the issues at hand.
First, when the council gives a definitive response to the iconoclast Council of Hieria, Epiphanius (speaking for the council) explicitly says that the existence of eternal damnation “is the confession of…the divinely inspired Apostles” and “the Catholic Church,” calling those who oppose the teaching “heretics.”
Definition 18 [of Hieria]: If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to his merits, in the righteous balance of the Lord that neither will there be any end of punishment nor indeed of the kingdom of heaven, that is the full enjoyment of God, for the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink but righteousness joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, as the divine Apostle teaches, let him be anathema.
Epiphanius [in giving the definitive reply of Nicea II to Hiera] reads: This is the confession of the patrons of our true faith the holy Apostles, the divinely inspired Fathers–this is the confession of the Catholic Church and not of heretics. That which follows, however, their own full of ignorance and absurdity for thus they bluster… (Source, p. 423)
Second, the council during the seventh session gives a “sentence” which, for both Orthodox and Roman Catholics, is a summation of infallible teaching on faith and morals. This sentence teaches as follows pertaining to both the fifth ecumenical council and Origen:
With whom we also anathematise the fables of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus in accordance with the fifth General Council assembled at Constantinople (Ibid., p. 438).
So, even if we were to take view that the historicity of the claim made by Nicea II is questionable, what is not questionable is that it condemns Origen’s teachings (in the Appendix, I will show that the council also condemned Origen himself.) Hence, if Constantinople II never officially condemned Origen’s teachings and these were later inserted into the record of the council, Nicea II officially recognized these anathemas as legitimate, thereby adding them retroactively.
What if you disagree with Nicea II? I suppose you can join a High Church Anglican congregation near you, because the seventh council is not dogmatically accepted by them while it is non-negotiable to the Orthodox Church.
In closing, “universalism” is an embarrassment to Orthodox Christians. It betrays that there is massive ignorance among the supposed “experts” and “scholars” who ignore easily available, definitive teachings on the matter. The council is clear. Universalism cannot be true if judgement is coming and punishment will never end.
No amount of philosophizing and tangential reasoning of the “ramifications” of the fathers’ teachings undoes clear statements from the Scriptures and the council fathers to the contrary.
As for those who teach falsehoods about universalism, the Scriptures warn, “God will send them a strong delusion, that they should believe the lie” (2 Thes 2:11). May God have mercy on all of us, because apart from His grace, we are all prone to believe any number of lies and forswear the Gospel of our Lord.
____________________________
Appendix for Eternal Damnation
Nicea II cites a creed from the ecumenical patriarch to the Church at large in the affirmative:
Moreover I look for the resurrection of the dead and for the eternal retribution of all things which have been done whether they be good or evil (Ibid., p. 94).
It also cites “the Synodals of Theodore, most holy Patriarch of Jerusalem” which states in the third session:
And we confess also the resurrection of the dead in the last day, consequence of the sound of the archangelic trumpet, and the retribution according to the just judgment of Christ our God awarded those who have lived well or who have lived otherwise and the of the world to come, which has no end (Ibid., p. 106).
During the sentence of the council (seventh session), eternal damnation is referenced again:
‘But the Lord awakened as a man out of sleep and as a mighty man refreshed with wine and He smote His enemies in the hinder parts and put them to a perpetual shame.’ If then eternal shame was by His resurrection put on His enemies that is the power of darkness, how then can Christians any more serve idols” (Ibid., p. 454)?
Appendix for Origen’s Condemnation
During the first session, the life of “Father Sabbas” was read as it taught on the “canons” of the Church:
Cosmas the Deacon and Chamberlain reads from the Life of our holy Father Sabbas: At the fifth holy General Council held at Constantinople, Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, together with the speculations of Evagrius and Didymus concerning the pre-existence and restitution of all things, were all subjected to one common and Catholic anathema all the four Patriarchs being present and consistent thereto (Ibid., p. 36).
The compelling thing about the preceding passage is that the condemnation of the “restitution of all things” is explicitly a condemnation of Origenist universalism. In doing so, it ascribes the 14th anathema against Origen to “the fifth holy General Council.” So, even if this is not explicitly true historically speaking, it shows dogmatically the anathema itself is of ecumenical authority and apocatastasis’ condemnation is affirmed by the council, at the very least, retroactively.
The same condemnation is cited elsewhere during Nicea II.
After which followed the Fifth Ecumenical Council of one hundred and sixty Fathers which was assembled in the Royal City and guided by the Holy Spirit confirmed the four Councils which preceded it and in pursuance of their orthodox decisions anathematised Nestorius, Eutyches, and Theodore of Mopsuestia with his blasphemies and moreover it anathematised Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus and their fabulous and heathen mystifications, together with the epistle said to be sent from Ibas to Maris of Persia and the writings of Theodoret against the twelve orthodox chapters of St Cyril (Ibid., p. 110-112).
Later in the council “Stephen the Monk read ‘The First Book of the Confutation of Eusebius’s Defence of Origen’ by Antipater Bishop of Bostra,” which condemns Origen’s teaching that Jesus Christ is created and the pre-existence of souls. Eusebius’ writings, for defending Origen, are called “alien from the Catholic Church” (Ibid., p. 276-277).
The “Letter from the Council to the Empress Irene and Her Son” reiterates the council’s sentence:
[W]e anathematize the madness of Arius, the frenzy of Macedonius, the absurd of Apollinarius, the man worship of Nestorius, the confusing insanity of Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the many headed hydra which followed them the trifling confabulations of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius and with these the one will or rather the bad will of Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, and their partisans and the innovation quite on a par with the rest which after these have been vainly absurdly set forth against holy and venerable images this since day we with one voice and soul taking our words from the and from that source having drawn pure water (p. 445).
_________
Final notes: I personally believe Origen himself is misunderstood and he was a very good man. However, I also think the teachings of the councils are correct. I will leave the issue there for now.
As for the universalists, I make no judgements upon their souls, but only their false doctrine, bad historical claims, and the source of all falsehoods (the father of lies, John 8:44). My falsehoods and immorality may greatly exceed them. So, I do not exalt myself above them. Rather, I commend all of us to submit to the Scriptures and the clear teaching of the Church in this matter.

Help Grow the Orthodox Church in Cambodia!
Has this article blessed you? Please bless the Moscow Patriarchate’s missionary efforts in Cambodia to bring the Gospel to a people who have not heard it!
$1.00
Origen is a tough one. He died in the embrace of the Church and it was only hundreds of years later that teachings associated with his name became a serious nuisance to the Church. His thought is absolutely foundational to many whose orthodoxy is unchallengeable, including the Cappodician Fathers. If only he had been more circumspect about his speculations, he may have spared a lot of people a lot of trouble.
This doesn’t engage any scholarship whatsoever, nor any arguments made, nor reference easy to discover online discussions of the Council, anything from canon law experts, etc. I think those tools and information are easily accessible to anyone that has genuine interest in this topic. Suffice it to say most of this is wrong.
It’s not wrong, go read Nicea II, it’s in plain translated English. I notice in your comments you accuse me of being wrong, but you offer no real analysis of what is written. Find me where the scholars explain Nicea II. I do not see any way to explain away their condemnations here. SImply appealing to “scholars,” who may have never read Nicea II, does not mean much.
My latest article Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation? addresses at length the question raised by this article, at least in general. I also speak to the specific point raised regarding Nicaea II in the comments.
Father, I hope you are not offended by me adding this, but you admitted to not reading the entirety of the fifth council–so I believe your comments are too contingent upon trusting faulty secondary research.
No offense taken, Craig. It’s true. I have only read the sections of the Fifth Council’s acts that are relevant to the question at hand. I do not see why that should call my credibility into question but each to their own. As far as the secondary research, well … I do not know how any one can even often an opinion on this subject if they have not immersed themselves in it, to the best of their ability. We are about history and we had best listen to the historians.
Father, the problem is you and Dr. Hart cite that “scholarship has shown Origen was never condemned by the fifth council” when Origen was condemned by name in the council. So, if whatever you two are reading gets an obvious detail like that wrong, and you missed it from the sections you were reading, then perhaps you missed the ones actually relevant to the question?
Craig, read the article before you make such a silly statement. Origen’s name is included in the 11th canon of the council. I have never contested that. Jeesh.
Didn’t you revise the article twice over a couple of years? I apologize if I am misremembering its original rending. I know for a fact Dr. Hart has explicitly denied Origen’s condemnation.
As a student of history, as myself, I thought you may find the following interesting. I will admit, it does not put the best light on our disagreement on the fifth council. To be fair, however, I am also tough on Alura of Shameless Orthodoxy, who’s articles I have reposted here. So, it’s nothing personal against you.
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2019/11/17/apocatastasis-condemnation-during-the-council-of-constantinople-ii/
Apology accepted.
Yes, you are right about Hart. As i recall, he mentioned this in his article “Saint Origen.” This is not an idiosyncratic opinion on his part. A number of historians over the past three centuries have suggested precisely that on the basis of historical (not theological) considerations. My impression is that the historians have moved back to accepting that the final version of canon 11 did include Origen’s name. I have never seen the need to make a decision on that, lacking the competence to do so. Quite frankly, I don’t think it matters one way or another. The naming of a person as a heretic does not tell us which of his teachings the counsel bishops considered heretical. Canon 11 is just too ambiguous and general to serve any dogmatic purpose. If the 15 anathemas are directed against Origen (he is not named in them), then it’s clear they do not touch his authentic teachings. They are directed, rather, against the teachings of the 6th century Origenists.
I responded to the sentiment in the latter part of that paragraph in the article I linked you to.
As for the the integrity of the manuscripts of Canon 11, this sounds to me made up. Fr Price makes absolutley no mention of this whatsoever and he always will cite differences in manuscripts. If my memory serves me right, the majority of the 5th council’s minutes are in Latin to begin with, so I don’t think there is a lot of diversity. Further, we have Origen’s condemnation mentioned in Session 5, so if this is a “corruption” how does it keep finding itself in different spots of the manuscripts and then a saint’s life written within the same decade of Constantinople II–this same life cited and quoted by Nicea II itself?
I am sure you agree, in this era of disinformation and “fake news,” that it is irresponsible to float ideas without absolutely no textual or historical basis. And therein is the rub. When we have a pretty basic testimony of events from historical documents with no contradiction for centuries, revisionists must exercise more humility in asking their questions and admitting the shortcomings of their case.
I hope you do read my argument for the inclusion of the 543AD anathemas in the fifth council. I think there are solid textual grounds for it.
God bless,
Craig
I found it. It does seem like you endorsed, by not correcting the record, the following misreading of history, quoting Ramelli in (your words) “magesterial monograph:”
The Council that is usually cited as that which “condemned Origen” is the fifth ecumenical council, the second Constantinopolitan Council, in 553 CE … The anathemas, fifteen in number, were already prepared before the opening of the council. Here, Origen is considered to be the inspirer of the so-called Isochristoi. This was the position of the Sabaite opponents of Origen, summarised by Cyril of Scythopolis who maintained that the Council issued a definitive anathema against Origen, Theodore, Evagrius, and Didymus concerning the preexistence of souls and apokatastasis, thus ratifying Sabas’ position (V. Sab. 90)….Origen is not the object of any authentic anathema.”
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/apocatastasis-the-heresy-that-never-was/
Do you give me my apology back? 😉
God bless,
Craig
Craig, I have just puiblished a response to this article. Well, that’s not completely accurate. Let’s say that I use it as a springboard into the question of hell and retributive punishment: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/06/06/divine-retribution-hell-and-the-development-of-dogma/
As far as the apology regarding the Ramelli quote, it’s in the mail. 🙂 But you know as well as I do that one should never jump to the conclusion that a writer agrees with everything he quotes. But I do recall thinking at the time that it was important for folks to know that scholars still debate the question whether Origen’s name was interpolated into the list of heretics.
The question of interpolation is historically ridiculous, Origen condermned in 2 sessions. Further, when you quote a work uncritically and call it “magisterial”, you are endorsing its contents or misleading people–one or another.
Is a retraction in order, Father?
Oh, Craig. Phooey. Please don’t play the “I’m a better scholar than Ilaria Ramelli” card. That requires a Ph.D. and a bunch of peer-reviewed articles and maybe a book or two. My point stands. Your argument is with Ramelli, not with me. You have mistakenly attributed her opinion on the interpolation of Origen’s name into canon 11 to me, and you’ve been rude to boot. Our conversation is ended. If you want to come to my blog and engage my articles, you are most welcome, but please come with better arguments and scholarly support. Ciao.
Father, two points. You both have not read (or at least internalized) Father Price’s comments on “conciliar fundamentalism” (which are most relevant to your article) and the ecumenical councils themselves (by your own admission). How is that rude for me to point out?
Furthermore, you asserted in the comments above you did not endorse DBH’s citing of Origen never being condemned by the fifth council and when I quoted you citing someone saying exactly that, I rightly pointed out by calling the work magiesterial and not correcting its contents, you in effect endorsed it.
There’s an American proverb: “You cannot have it both ways.”
God bless,
Craig
Our above conversation from yesterday, in the event you forgot:
Me:
Father, the problem is you and Dr. Hart cite that “scholarship has shown Origen was never condemned by the fifth council” when Origen was condemned by name in the council. So, if whatever you two are reading gets an obvious detail like that wrong, and you missed it from the sections you were reading, then perhaps you missed the ones actually relevant to the question?
You:
Craig, read the article before you make such a silly statement. Origen’s name is included in the 11th canon of the council. I have never contested that. Jeesh.
__
I later quoted the section of your article where you quoted a scholar, as I accurately accused you of.
So, now you admit you cited scholarship? Want to apologize for your “jeesh” and untrue comments?