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
Orthodox Christian Theology 
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.
The teachings did not become a “serious nuisance to the Church.” They became a serious nuisance to one person – Emperor Justinian. Justinian’s entire goal in life was the unification of the severed Roman Empire and the return of it to power and glory. Included in this was the reconquest of lands taken over by pagans. The Originests in Jerusalem were causing major havoc, along with those who were non-Chalcedonians – a substantial contingent of people. Riots and even deaths were happening as the various factions fought among themselves. Justinian saw Origen’s teachings as part of this larger problem.
Along with this, Justinian stated clearly that he felt that the teaching of Apokatastasis would make men lazy, indulgent, and inclined to sin (in other words, they wouldn’t behave, meaning “obey the emperor”). One wonders how the Christian faith grew and people became saints who were not threatened constantly with the fear of unending torment. How could Gregory of Nyssa or Isaac of Syria possibly live holy lives just by loving Christ Jesus?
So Justinian wanted a unifed system of belief in the thought that it would untie the empire. Didn’t work. Historians note that for eighty years after Justinian’s death the riots and internal strife continued. The Church had grown from nothing to overtaking the Roman Empire with the teaching of Apokatastasis in place (and, as noted by Augustine, being a largely held belief in the empire). Justinian was too focused on his own desire for empire unity to notice or care about this.
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
You shouldn’t call him “Father.” He’s an unconverted modernist heretic who does not believe in Christ and the Christian faith.
He is still ordained
All this talk about Origen and councils is a Red Herring from the real issue, which is the specific teaching of Christ (the highest authority) and Scripture. Christ specifically taught that Hell is eternal, as does Holy Scripture. The problem is with your heart. You do not believe in Christ and the Christian faith and Scripture. The idea that a text can be subject to multiple interpretations is symptomatic of postmodernism (Jacques Derrida). There is only one meaning to Christ’s words. Read “Hell On Trial: The Case For Eternal Punishment,” by Peterson.
You are not a New Testament scholar, nor are the sources you reference. No competent scholar with a Ph.D. in New Testament will maintain the view that Scripture supports Universalism. The Greek totally makes Universalism impossible, as does the English.
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?
Stop calling this man “Father.” He is a postmodernist heretic who denies the specific teaching of Christ. He is anathematized by St. Paul in Galatians 1. I am sick to death of the super polite attitude of “political correctness.”
I don’t see how Universalists avoid the anathema issued by St. Paul in Galatians 1 because they are preaching a Gospel not taught by the apostles.
The Neo-Orthodox heretic Karl Barth and the Philosopher John Hick are contemporary Universalists. Most liberal theologians and cults hold to some form of Universalism.
Universalism is actually based in a kind of Freudian illusion. Sigmund Freud called any belief based on a mere wish to be an illusion. It is an illusion to believe that all wishes will be fulfilled.
It is important for Universalists to understand that the proper view of justice is penal, not reformatory. God’s absolute justice and holiness demand that a penalty be paid for sin (see Lev.17:11; Ezek. 18:20).
MY BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC CASE AGAINST UNIVERSALISM
One thing heretics do is base doctrines on vague or unclear biblical passages, and they ignore or twist the clear and explicit passages.
St. Paul: “Let God be true but every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4).
God’s attributes do not operate in contradiction to each other. It is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2); so if God says Hell is eternal, than it is. The god of the Universalist is morally defective, because he lies. He says Hell is eternal, but actually doesn’t mean it. He is like a morally depraved human, and speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
The Bible clearly teaches that there is an eternal Hell and that human beings go there. (see Matt. 25:41; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 20:11-15).
In Matthew 25:41, Jesus said to those on his left side, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” The Greek word used in this passage is “aiōnios,”and it means “without end.” (Strong’s Concordance, G166).
The same Greek word “aionios” which speaks of the eternality of God, is also used of Heaven and Hell. Therefore, Hell will exist as long as God does.
Says Christ: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” (Matt. 25:46). Do you agree? Yes or no? If yes, then you have refuted yourself. If no, then you are an antichrist.
When speaking about Hell, Jesus said in Mark 9:43 that the fire never goes out.
St. Paul teaches in 2Thess. 1:9 that the lost will be punished with everlasting destruction.
In the story of the rich man and Lazarus located in Luke 16:23-31, Abraham said about the dead, that there is a great gulf fixed, and that people cannot cross it.
St. Paul recognized that in spite of his prayers, not all his kinsmen would be saved (Romans 11).
And according to Romans 1:17 (compare Romans 3:21-26) only those who believe are justified. This is the apostolic teaching; this is the apostolic faith.
The Old Testament book of Daniel speaks of everlasting condemnation.
“And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:2). The Hebrew word for “everlasting” (owlam), means everlasting. (see Strong’s # H5769).
Isaiah 66: “their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched.”
Romans 9:14 says only the elect will be saved.
1 Corinthians 6:9 says that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
2 Corinthians 5:17 teaches that reconciliation is for those who are “in Christ.” Not for all people.
According to Matthew 7:13-14, all will not be saved.
Hebrews 9 is clear that there is no second chance after death.
The urgency of spreading the Gospel in this life supports the teaching that there is no hope of salvation after death (see John 3:36:; John 5:24).
The view that a text has no objective meaning, but can be subject to limitless interpretations is an idea of postmodernism (specifically Jacques Derrida). Postmodernism has diseased society since the 1960’s.
PATRISTIC TEACHING
Pope St. Gregory the Great taught that ungodly and unbelieving men are consigned to eternal punishment. (Morals on Job, Book 34).
Justin Martyr: “For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan and the Devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings; and that he would be sent into the fire with his host and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold.”
Saint Irenaeus: “Moreover he says the Book of Life was opened and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the books according to their works, and death and hell were sent into the Lake of Fire, the second death. Now this is what is called Gehenna, which the Lord styled eternal fire. And if anyone, it is said, was not found written in the Book of Life, he was sent into the Lake of Fire.”
Saint Cyprian: “As God as he is merciful so he exacts obedience to his precepts; and indeed carefully exacts it. And as he invites to the banquet, so the man that hath not a wedding garment he binds hands and feet and casts them out beyond the assembly of the saints. He has prepared Heaven, but he has also prepared Hell. He has prepared places of refreshment, but he has also prepared eternal punishment. He has prepared the life that none can approach unto. But he has also prepared the vast and eternal gloom of perpetual night.”
Lactantius: “Both therefore spoke with truth, but yet both incorrectly. For the ways themselves ought to have been referred to life, their ends to death. We therefore speak better and more truly who say that the two ways belong to heaven and hell because immortality is promised to the righteous and everlasting punishment is threatened to the unrighteous.”
St. John Chrysostom: “We know that salvation itself is a property of the One Church, and that no one can be outside of the catholic Church and yet share the Faith of Christ, or be saved…Neither do we offer any part of that hope to the ungodly heretics, but we place them entirely outside of that hope; indeed, they have not the least participation in Christ, but vainly assume for themselves that saving Name.” (Migne P. G. 59:725).
St. John Chrysostom: “…if we commit countless sins it is possible to wash them all away by manifesting repentance for our offenses: but when once we have departed to the other world even if we display the most earnest repentance it will be of no avail…but we shall only hear those words which the rich man heard in the parable, “Between us and you a great gulf has been fixed.” (A Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall 1.9).
St. Augustine: “Outside the Catholic Church everything may be had except salvation. One may have orders and Sacraments, one may sing Alleluia and answer Amen, one may hold the Gospel, one may have and preach in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but nowhere except in the Catholic Church can one find salvation.” (PL. Vo. 43, pp. 689-698).
St. Fulgence of Ruspe (468-533 A.D.): “Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that no person baptized outside the Catholic Church can become a participant of eternal life if, before the end of this life, he has not returned and been incorporated into the Catholic Church.” (Migne, PL Vo. 65. pp. 671-706).
St. Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.): “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside her will not be saved.” (Moralia, Lib. XIV, Cap. V. n. 5. PL, Tom. LXXV. col. 1043).
St. Lactantius (240-320 A.D.): “Therefore, it is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the faith, this is the temple of God; into which if any one shall not enter, or from which if any shall go out, he is estranged from the hope of life and eternal salvation.” (Divinarum Institutionum–The Divine Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 30: See also: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Lactantius, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody. Mass., Second Printing, 1999, p. 133).
Tertullian: “It is determined by law that nobody can be saved without baptism.” (De bapt. 12, 1). He also spoke of “eternal punishment” (The Prescription Against Heretics, XIII).
St. Cyprian denies salvation to all those who secede from the Church (De eccl. cath. unit. 6).
The following quotes are from the book, “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” by Bercot, pp. 150-150. The sources are provided in the book.
Lactantius: …”This is the everlasting temple. If anyone has not sacrificed in this, he will not have the reward of immortality”…
St. Cyprian: “Likewise, neither can he be saved by baptism who has not been baptized in the church.”
St. Cyprian: “There is no salvation outside of the church.”
St. Cyprian: …”remission of sins is not granted except in the church.”
St. Cyprian: “The house of God is one, and there can be no salvation to anyone except in the church.”
St. Irenaeus ( 125-202) speaks of “eternal darkness” (Against Heresies, 4.39.4) and “the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending” (ibid., 5. 27. 2).
Justin Martyr refers to “everlasting punishment,” (The First Apology of Justin, 8); “eternal punishment” (ibid., 18).
From his Apology, we see Justin using the phrases:
“To undergo everlasting punishment”
“To the everlasting punishment of fire”
“Suffer punishment in eternal fire”
“Eternal punishment is laid up”
“Are punished in everlasting fire”
“Brings eternal punishment by flames”
“Punished in eternal fire”
“In eternal fire shall suffer their just punishment and penalty”
“The wicked are punished in eternal fire”
St. Augustine uses the words
“eternal fire of hell”
“eternal death”
“eternal punishment”
“punishment eternal”
“punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity”
“eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end.” (City of God, 4.13; 6.12; 21.23).
St. Theophilus (130-190) speaks of the damned as “ever deprived of the enjoyment of light” and he used the phrase “eternal punishment” (Theophilus to Autolycus).
St. John Chrysostom: “…even if we commit countless sins it is possible to wash them all away by manifesting repentance for our offenses: but when once we have departed to the other world even if we display the most earnest repentance it will be of no avail avail, not even if we gnash our teeth, beat our breasts, and utter innumerable calls for succor, no one with the tip of his finger will apply a drop to our burning bodies, but we shall only hear those words which the rich man heard in the parable, “Between us and you a great gulf has been fixed.” (A Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall).
Origen spoke of “eternal fire and punishments.” (De Principiis, preface).
The Athanasian Creed says: “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”
4 Maccabees: “…A great struggle and peril of the soul awaits in eternal torment those who transgress the ordinance of God. (see 9:9; 10:11. 15; 12:12; 13:15).
The Jewish historian Josephus also spoke of eternal Hell, using the words “unquenchable fire” “everlasting punishment” “eternal punishment” “never ceasing grief” (see Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades).
Even the philosopher Plato held to eternal punishment. (see Georgias 525c).
St. Isaiah of Scetis spoke of eternal death. (The Evergetinos A Complete Text, bk. 1; St. Isaiah of Scetis, Matericon: Instructions of Abba Isaiah the the Honorable Nun Theodora (Translated from St. Theophan the Recluse’s Russian translation of the Greek manuscript from Mt. Athos).
St. Isaiah of Scetis spoke of everlasting fire. (St. Isaiah of Scetis, Matericon: Instructions of Abba Isaiah to the Honorable Nun Theodora).
St. Ephraim the Syrian spoke of eternal punishment. (The Works of Saint Ephraim the Syrian, vol 4) (in Greek).
St. Cyril of Alexandria spoke of eternal grief, unending sorry, ceaseless weaping. (Homily on the Departure of the Soul, Homily 13, PG 77 (in Greek).
The Venerable Bede spoke of everlasting torments. (St. Bede, A History of the English Church and People).
St. Theodoros the Great Ascetic, Bishop of Edessa spoke of the worm that does not die. (St. Theodora, A Century of Spiritual Texts in The Philokalia, vol 2. In the original Greek, vol 1).
St. Ignatius Brianchaninov spoke of eternal death. (Partial trans. in The Soul After Death).
The Synod of ROCOR spoke of eternal torment. (Orthodox Life, vol. 31, no 1).
Archimandrite Panteleimon Nizhnik spoke of the eternal fate common to evil angels and evil human souls. (Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave).
St. John Maxomovitch spoke about how deceased souls fear eternal torment which begins after the Dread Judgment. (Man of God. St. John of Shanghai and San Fransisco).
Elder Ephraim. “if we lose our soul the misfortune is eternal.” (The Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church, p. 51)
The Akathist to the Icon of the Most Holy Mother of God, “The inexhaustible Cup”: “deliver is from eternal condemnation”..
The Akathist to St. Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople asks to be delivered from everlasting torment.
The Akathist to the New-Martyr Elizabeth, Grand Duchess of Russia requests that prayer be made to the Lord to be delivered from everlasting torment.
Canon 19 of the Council of Trullo (692) says that we are not to interpret Scripture contrary to the teaching of the Fathers. The Church Fathers believed that Christ and Scripture teach eternal Hell.
Eternal conscious punishment has been affirmed by orthodox theology from the earliest time down through the Reformation into the modern era (see W.G.T. Shedd, Eternal Punishment).
“Brethren be not deceived. If any man follows him that separates from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell.” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, 4).
I am happy that Craig found Orthodoxy. I hope some day that Orthodoxy finds him.
When you just go Website listing the Canon of Nicaea II with not agenda you will find about this issue. Something Epiphanius said during the debates is not a Canon, and either way I do am not convinced by your claim he was referring to that specific party of Heira.
Since Man is Made in God’s Image, Eternal Damnation would make God an iconoclast.
And the Anathamas agaisnt Origen that MIGHT have been canonized by Coonstaniople II are not actually about Universal Salvation at all, the Heresy there is heretical view of what Salvation is, tied to Origen preexistence of Souls doctrine as well as denying a Bodily Resurrection.. From ym POV what these “Origenists” believed is the opposite of Salvation, but more like the Anime Evangleion presents as horrible ending.
I don;t think you understand what in the councils the fathers found authoritative, but judging from your tone, I very much doubt you’d be interested in actually engaging in this, but telling me I am wrong in contradistinction with the fathers. You can read the tome of the council of constantinople 1351. It will tell you how to read a council.
1351 is not even an Ecumenical Council, at that point you’re already well after the Split with Rome.
This video pretty much addresses every single objection you can possibly think of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px4XaG9qDyw&t=3556s
The main reason we know Universalism is heresy, is because it contradicts Christ and Scripture. End of argument. If a person rejects the teaching of Christ and Holy Scripture, he is not a Christian. People do not have the right or authority to come into our Church and reinvent aspects of it to suit themselves. Read “Hell On Trial: The Case For Eternal Punishment,” by Peterson.
Kimel is not a New Testament scholar, nor are the sources he references. New Testament Greek, and even the English translations make Universalism impossible.
The Bible is the highest doctrinal authority in Christianity. The Bible and the specific teaching of Christ categorically affirm eternal Hell. There is no question about it. All the talk about Origen and St. Jerome are a Red Herring from the main issue, which is the authority and teaching of Christ and Holy Scripture. The problem with Universalists, is that they are not truly converted to the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3). They have no right to come into our Church and reinvent it to suit themselves. Read the book, “Hell On Trial: The Case For Eternal Punishment,” by Peterson. Yes, sometimes the heterodox gets things right.
I have done some serious work on this issue which I want to publish. I agree with the findings of the Ecumenical Councils regarding Origen. I am looking for an appropriate credentially scholar to collaborate on this. Perhaps you know of someone. Please send me email – thank you