I have to admit to a certain guilty pleasure at seeing the excessive dismay that some hellists exhibit at the writings of Universalists. Some writers, such as the Thomist philosopher and bête noire of David Bentley Hart, Edward Feser, appear gobsmacked at the mere suggestion that God will ultimately save all. There are also Orthodox priests who have written and spoken in defense of an eternal hell. They appear quite agitated that Universalists exist in the face of “settled dogma.” Perhaps I am reading them wrongly, but the amount of time spent pounding a keyboard in defense of an eternal hell of torment makes me think they are, under their skin at least, quite upset over this.

Others, such as Fr. James Dominic Rooney, maintain an irenic composure in their responses to people who believe In Universalism. For the most part, however, that we actually believe, against the teaching of the “infallible” Roman Catholic Church, that there is an end to hell, and everyone eventually makes it home, causes a lot of dyspepsia among most ordinary Christians. My delight in the caterwauling of hellists is one of my many faults (O Lord, do I ever have a catalog of faults I could share with you!) that needs correction. I’m glad Orthodoxy has the Sacrament of Confession. I need it. Frequently.

I seem to have especially gotten under the skin of one Eastern Catholic writer, who, like me, is an amateur theologian and who, unlike me, believes what the Roman Catholic Church tells him to believe, i.e., that there is an eternal hell. I wonder if he believes that I am bound for this hell since I A.) left the embrace of the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy, and B.) believe against the dogmatic teaching of the RCC that there is not an eternal hell. In his post of today, April 29th, he takes issue with some of the points I have made in my earlier post entitled UNTHINKING PASCHAL HYPOCRISY. In this post, I take issue with those in Orthodoxy who have accepted the distinctly Western view of God as being “The Mighty Smiter,” a title that Brad Jersak coined in his writing. In this piece, I have posted the distinctive troparia and antiphons which we Orthodox sing (with considerable joy and gusto, I may add) and make commentary on them from a Universalist point of view.

Brad Jersak, an Orthodox writer himself, wrote a lovely piece on how the Paschal hymns of the Orthodox church have a very distinctive Universalist flavor. They do. They are triumphant songs of Christ’s mighty defeat of death and Hades, songs which leave me wondering how so many Orthodox are inclined to the belief in eternal hell. I’m sorry, but it seems schizophrenic to me to sing of Christ’s victory over death and hell and yet

believe that death and hell continue forever. Where is the victory in that? More than that, there is no official catechism of the Orthodox Church which spells out eschatology in the manner the RCC does. As I understand it, my eschatological beliefs, until defined and codified by an ecumenical council, are an open subject. I believe in Universalism. I am allowed this.

I wonder that if and when this blog piece of mine should get back to my bishop, I am going to be in deep kimchee for daring to teach that God actually intended to save and redeem all mankind, as it says in Acts 3: 21 (“whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.”) For some people, I guess, all doesn’t really mean all. Just kinda . . . well, sort of most of all. Kind of.

Anyhow, back to the subject at hand. I know this writer personally and know that he is devoted to Christ and lives the Christian life as fully as he can. When I started a Matins Prayer at our parish (this was before I left for Orthodoxy), he was the only person faithful to come and participate with me. He is a good man. We just happen to disagree on eschatological matters. This is what he wrote in response to my piece: Responding to Universalist Complaints.

To which I responded:

Well, since neither you nor I are professional theologians, any conversation between us is liable to fault and error. It will also probably be rather amusing to professional theologians who may stumble across our mental meanderings. What is not up for discussion is A.) the inerrancy of the Bible in the original Greek, something that Roman Catholic translators have gotten abysmally wrong. B.) the Holy Tradition of the Church, which for 500 years was that Christ has redeemed all mankind to Himself (Romans 5: 12-19) and which was taught across the Eastern Church in four of six theological schools which existed until Emperor Justinian closed them down. C.) the writings of the Early Fathers in defense of Universalism and the fact that these open writings and their authors were never condemned by any council anywhere at any time. St. Gregory Nyssa, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Macarina, St. Gregory, St. Isaac the Syrian, and Maximus the Confessor remain saints in the Church of both East and West and have not been anathematized.

In other words, we have the three-legged stool of apostolic belief which binds us to fidelity to it: The Sacred Scriptures, Holy Tradition, and the Early Fathers. This is what I have been taught to regard as the basis of our Christian faith. There are also the Seven Ecumenical Councils, which state the things in which we must believe.

Tone 1: I must defer an answer regarding the idea of rejection of eternal life to the writers Kronen and Reitan and Thomas Talbot. Find their books and read them. Limited space here prevents a more comprehensive response other than to say that the idea that one might be brought out of one’s delusion and see the One who is the “Fairest Among Ten Thousand” and not desire is to me an absurd thought.

Tone 2: In our discussion of Universalism today (a Zoom meeting of like-minded men) someone brought up the fact that fire in the Bible is always seen as purifying (think of the smelter sitting at his pot smelting gold). Western theology sees the word “fire” and for some reason immediate thinks of an eternal hell of torment. You need to restructure your thinking to be in line with Scripture.

Tone 3: Better people than you and I, my fine young friend, Greek scholars, have stated that there is no such Greek word in the whole of Scriptures which means “eternal.” You have no concept of how the Bible is approaching chastisement or to whom it is addressed. The Greek word “aionios” does not mean “eternal.” Unfortunately, Latin translators, who did not know Greek, translated it in every place they found it as meaning “eternal,” thus making it sound like there is an eternal hell of torment.

Tone 5: David Bentley Hart has responded to this in a far better manner than either you or I could. He is a professional theologian. You are not and neither am I. The difference between God’s antecedent will and His consequent will are enveloped in one will at the end of all time, which is the will of God spoken of in 1 Timothy 2: 4, that all will be saved. I sense you fancy yourself quite the theologian in these matters, therefore, I suggest you read Hart’s exposition on this issue.

Tone 7: I can’t believe you wrote that with a straight face. Go back and read what you wrote. Then make up your mind. Either Christ has destroyed death, Hades is destroyed, death is no longer, or Hell wins, death continues forever, and Christ’s sacrifice is only for a select few (i.e. the heretical TULIP of Calvinism is correct). If you believe in an eternal hell, then as an Eastern Catholic, please DO NOT sing “Christ is risen from the dead, BY DEATH HE TRAMPLED DEATH . . .” next Pascha, because you really don’t believe it.

And as regarding Romans 5: 19 (For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.) you need to take a course in understanding word constructs. Were MANY made sinners, or did ALL mankind fall in Adam? You know very well the answer – ALL. Therefore, if the “many” in the verse really indicates all mankind, then the second “many” must carry the same meaning, i.e. ALL!! You can’t split the word into two different meanings here.

If there does happen to be an eternal hell, then the Bible is a lie, St. Paul lied, Jesus lied, and, according to David Bentley Hart and others who have said the same thing, God is a monster. Only a monster would knowingly create sentient beings, foreknowing that their creation would doom billions of them to unending torment.

You appear to not have read anything at all by any Universalist writers such as Hart, Parry, Jersak, Kronen and Reitan, and others. You also appear to not have read my book on the issue. If you have, then you are cherry-picking that with which you think you can post a winning point. All of your objections are answered by us. Go do your homework and stop bothering me with these fallacious objections to God’s love.

This is a rather meek response, compared to what I dared to say to Fr. Rooney’s post in which he claimed that God sending people into an eternal hell of torment (my words, not exactly his) could very well be for their ultimate good.

My response to such a statement involved a considerably impolite scatological reference to equine agricultural fertilizer, for which I shall have to, once again, go to Confession. I really need to learn patience.

**sigh** Perhaps someday I shall be able to view the defenders of the angry, hell-sending God with a more irenic tenor.