THE COLLECTED WORKS VOLUME 1 The Inner Kingdom yy BISHOP KALLISTOS WARE —~_ 2004m Dare WE HOPE FOR TLE SALVATION OF ALL? Origen, St Gregory of Nyusa and ‘Selsaae the Syrian God ino one who seguts evi but He set aight ex, Stace he Syrian “Love could not bear that” Tis xg sore atin wich ny in ut pres ste of IKnowiege, we cannot tnewe, nd yt, nanevere hough these ues may be cannot mld misng them, Locking beyond the ‘heh of death, wean How can the soul xs wither boy? What Isthenaureofou duembodied conscloutnsberrecn death and cfd resurecon? Whats dhe preie relitonip beech out present body dnd te “ops ody” (Co ad) which he righteous wl exe in dhedge w come? Lat, but nota ws Dare wehope forte salvation ofa cis upon his na question th wish vo concen Una sbleor aoe ft qucton tha dec aferour ure understanding of Gos elas tothe wold. Aree ulnatecoacusion of alvion bigoy, wil hee bean alLembracngreconliaon? Wil evry ested venull find apace within the Tiktan perches wa the tvs of tal oe ses ca Mk Sak Holy Spats Sin Behe bac ‘Atala ‘Alene f hing ale wel| 94 ‘un moun eaveDon Hive we the sight to endorse ther confident affsmation of Julian of Norwich, as TS lor docs in che lst of is Four Quart? eeu pose the question more sharply by appealing fist the words of swentet-century Rusa Orthodox moak and then to the opening chapter of Genesis The dilemma the cscs us well aramed up ins conversation secorded by Archimandite Sophrony, the dicple of St Sllouan of Mount Athos: 1: ys ascii charncerinic of Saree Stouan so pay for the dead singin el of partion fom God Hecould nar ear thik feyone wuld languish “outer aren I rember convertion ‘ec himana seein han wh declared with erie econ Cod ‘il pail aoe They wil burnin eng ee™ Obvious upc she Ste sid, “Tellme sipposng you went pra, see nna ya ea ‘feel happy?” “Teen be pede woul beh own "ld he ert ‘The Sars need im with «sore counennee. “Love epuld ot bear tha hed "We ma payor = Here exactly the basic problem is ct before us Se Silouan appeal 0 divine compassion: “Love could no bear shat” The hes emphases ‘human responsibil: “Is would be thei own fault.” We are confonted by vo principles that ae apparently confiting: ist, Gadi ove econ Iran beings are ie How ar we 1o give proper weigh teach of ches principle? Fin, God i oe, and this love of His is generous, inezhausbe, infinitely pa ‘Sent. Surly hen, He wll never sop loving any ofthe atonal eretures ‘wom He has made; He wil concn eo watch over them in His vender mercy unt eventually pethape after countless agen al of thers Feely and ‘wilingly um bac Him, Buin thae case wha happens to our second Principle, Auman Being are fe? Ifthe eiumph of divine loves inevitable, What place is cher for liberty of choice? How can we be penne’ Beef i the lst eesor there is nothing for us to choose berween? ets rere thease in alight different way. On the fst page of the Bible eis writen, “God saw evrything that He had made, and bee Acne Sophon (Sao), Si Sloe eben. Dare We Hope forthe Saloation of AIP 5 fold car aogether good and bentfl” (Gen x3, ng. Tn the bene ‘ing, ha cosy there was unity all rested things parcipned ll she goodness ruth and benty of the Creator Are we then ao ne ae athe end here willbe not unity but dali thereto Bea continuing opposition berucen good ander, ermeen heaven and fel bemoan oe duel tone, that remains freer uncercred? If we sart by allen ‘hat God ceed a wold which war wholly god, andi tea ma that sigan pr of is rational erston wl end up in tlle angul,spaated frm Him forall cern, surely es ols da God ‘ag fled in serene wore and has been dee byte fees ofc ‘Are we to ret satisfied with ich «conclusion? Or da we lool, horses setae, beyond this duality oan lima etorson of iy hoa “alshall be wel” ej the osily of univers! sation, CS. Lewis staal: “Sone wil not be redeemed, There i no Gourne which T mould ee ling semore rom Chisianty than hifi yin my ponee Bare 1s the fll apport Serpe st pecaly of Our Lon swr vont $s always been held by Christendom andithas the suppor: of san 1s Lewis ght? Does universalism in fic conti Sersvate,taien, atu reason in uch stark and earcat way? Two strands of Scripture Iets not dificue ro find texts inthe New Testament that warn usin what seem to be unambiguous reams, of the prospect of never-ending torment inl Le ws take bur thee enamples, each consisting of words sributed scaly to Jesus Mark 943, 47-48." yous hand causes you wo stumble, cuit off it's focyou to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go. hell, to the unquenchable fire... And if your eye causes you to erumble, tear cous iis borer for you wo enter the Kingdom of God with one oye than to have 1wo eyes and tobe thrown into hel, where their worm doce not dc, and the fires not quenched” (cE Mr; Is 66:4), 4 The Pion of Pain London: Gs Bs 94) 16196 ‘nur minx mcpou Matthew 25:4 (rom the story ofthe sheep and the gost). “Then He will ay co chose at His left hand, ‘You tha are accused, depart from Me nto the eternal fe.” Luke 1:26 (the words of Abraham to the rca man in hell). "Between yu and usa great chasm has been fed, 50 that those who might wan 0 pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can eros from thereto kis dificuly ifnot impossible, co speak about the life after death ex ‘cept through the use of metaphors and symbol. Nor surprisingly, then, these thre passages employ a metaphorical “picure language”: they speale in terms of “fire,” the “worm,” and a “gest chasm.” The metaphors doubtless are not o be taken liealy, bur they have implications that a hard to avoids che fire is sad to be “unquenchable” and “eternal”; the worm “does noc die; the gulf is impassable, IF "erenal” (aionio, Mt 2s) in fact means no more than “ege-long’—lasting char is, through ‘out this present azon bur sot necessarily continuing into the Age to ‘come—and ifthe gelfis only temporarily impassable, then wy ietie not ‘made clear in the New Testament? Yer hese and other “hellfire” exes need tobe interpreted in the light of differen, less fequenty cited passages from the New Testament, «| ‘which point rather ina “univecsalis” diretion ‘There isa series of Pauline seas wohich afr a parallel benween the universality of sin on the one hand and the univezsalty of redemption on the oer. The most obvious example is 1 Covinzhians 1:2, where Pauli working out the analogy between the fist and the second Adam: “Ar all die in Adam, s0 all will be made alive in Chris.” Surely the word “al ‘bears the same sense in both halves ofthis sentence, There are similar pas- sages in Romans: “Just as one mans tespas led eo condemnation for al, 0 one manivact of righteousness lads co justification and lite fr al” (538); “God has imprisoned alin disobedience, that He may be mercifal = toall!” (x32). I might be argued shar in these three cases Pauls meaning, is simply chat Chriss death and Resurrection extend to all the posibiliy ‘of redemption. Tt does not follow that all wll or must be saved, fr chat ‘depends upon the voluntary choice ofeach one, Salvation, thats to say is offered to everyone, but noteveryone will cruelly accept. Infact, how- ‘ever, Paul suggests more than « meze possibility; he expreste 2 confident Dare We Hope for the Salvation of AIP 197 ‘expectation. He does nor say, “All may pechaps be made alive," but “All tile made alive.” Ax the very least this encourages us o pe for the sal- vation ofall. C.S. Lewis therefore contradicts Se Paul when heaserts 2s ® an established fact, “Some will not be redeemed." ‘The same note of expectant confidence is leo co be heard yer more dlistincly, in 1 Covincians 1528 (this was Origen key text). Chast wll reiga, sys Pavl, until “God has pu all things in subjection under His + fet... And when all things are made subject to the Son, ches the Son himself will also be made subject t0 the Father, who has subjeced all things to Him; and thus Ged wil be al i all” The phrase “ll in all” (paneaen pasa) definitely suggests not ulimare dualism but a ultimate reconciliation, ‘There is also che text from che Pasoral Epler chat in@uenced che Arminiaos and John Wesley: "I isthe will of God out Savio... chat all | should be saved and come to the knowledge ofthe truth’ (t Tim 2). Ie ‘an of course be pointed out thatthe author does noc here sat at a cer ‘tainty that all willbe saved, but merely sys that this is what God wanes. “Are we to assert, however, that God's wills going to be eventually fur taated? As before, we ae being encouraged at least to hope for waivers salvation I is imporran, therefore allow forthe complexity of the Sripeural ‘evidence. Ie does nor all poine in the same direction, but ther: are ro ‘contrasting strands, Some passages present us with a cellenge. God in- ‘ites bur does not compel. I possess freedom of choice: am I gong to say "yes" or “no” to the divine invitation? The future i uncertain. To which Dare We Hope fo he Salason of AIP 200 0 would esexpe the condemnation of the ant-Origenietanathemas. We shall esurn co this posibilcy ia a moment when considering St Gregory ‘of Nyss, bur let us fist explore further Origen’ reasons for affirming & final gpocatasie, Iki often claimed that belie in universal salvation, because it consid- 8 che eventual eriumph of divine love tobe inevicble, ful ea propesly allow for our liberty of chofe. This is an objection to which Origen i | consntndy sensitive. However confident his hope that God's love wil in the end preva he carefl never to undermine the vt sigalfennee of Ihuman fe wil While aiming that “God ilove” he doce ot lone ught of the coreltve piaipe, “Human beings ace ez,""Thus, whe spec ing ofthe subjection ofall ehngs to Ch, and of Christ wo the Eber (@Corssat), he observes: "Ths subjection willbe accomplished n accor, dance wich various assed methods and disciplines and times, yet fe should ot be thought that there sone necessity which compel al things isc subjection, o that the whole world wil be subdued oy force te Gord" Origen ie atogeier definite here chris no compulsion, no fore. If Gods love i aly victorious, this wl be because its ely and -wilingly seeped by the whole of rational avon Js notsimplys deduction from some abssac se Here we souch upon a dficaley has eke nr only in con ction witht fal eonaladon athe td of he oad oe ‘thoughout out Chistian expecence in this present if Ie i tepring to sepa divine grace and human freedoms sto contatng principles the one excluding the other and a2 rl we ofenasume atthe exoaget the aaion of pace, the more resticed ithe exes of ur human fee dom, Bue is this not fle dilemma? In the words of John AT. Robinsons reryone may pot eoinancer in which heat een consained thank ‘esponsey the ovemasering power oflove And yer unde hisseangeor- pubon haranjone ver fl hiselorininged or his peony alae? [nicnoc precy a thse moment sat he booms concious, perhaps only fora cing space ofbeing iain way he never knew belo, of ean ing filles and nteation of ifewaich rinextebly bound op was che ‘decision drawn ro him by snother® ove! Moreover chs te howeve 1 Onis Pipla 8 Baer 4.strong be the constrain lad pon imo, he, ies ue the stooge ti ‘Under theconsain of he lov of God in Gis his sens ofl let ‘satis masimom. The seimonyofenerionsisthathere,arnowher else, service perf feedor.” ° Surely this is tue par exellnceof the viceary of God’ ove in the age ro.come. The power that i victorious i the power af loving compassion, and so itis a viewry that does not overrule bue enbances our human eedom, (Origens caution is evident particular when he refers tothe salvation ‘of che devil and his angel. He makes ic abundantly clear that he epards this not asa cerainty but as a postibilicy In his Commentary em Jobs he ‘does no more than pose a question: “Since human beings can display re ppentance and curn from unbelief ro fit, shall we shrink back fom a sering something similar about the angelic powers?” In his weatise On ‘Prayer Origen limi himself to saying that God has plan for the devin the age to come, but we have at preent no idea what eis plan may be: "God will make arrangements for him, I know not how" In che wotk (On Fire Principle tbe macer is eft to the judgment ofthe reader ‘Whether ceri of those ode, which at under the ladetip ofthe devil sda obedient his wickedness, can at some pon fare ager be cone ‘ered goodaes inasmuch at theeatl asin chem dhepomer of Few, ‘reser the ev hat become 0 pemanent and dee-rcted ca ithas be come troughhabiparof thee narre: lem reade decide thief inal Here Origen suggests cwo possbiltes: ether the demons stil posses the power of free will or else dhey have reached the point of no return, afte which repentance is impossible. But he expresses no judgment; bath pos bilities ate left open. ‘This tases an interesting question, which I once put to-a Greek arch= bishop at che beginning of 2 four-hour car journey in the hope that it ‘would help Os while away the time. IF iis posible thatthe devil, who ‘must surely be a very lonely and unhappy person, may eventually repent 1 ibe nd God Conde: Foe oo, Coins, 96.02. 15 Game nb 259: 8 Pes, 22 13, OnProwr a7. Ga. 4 On Fin Pino Danewenta sp Tha lowe Raia he Cen nn er, te oe bay oe ame Dave We Hope forthe Saiaton of A? 3205 and be saved, why do we nevee pray for him? To may disappointment (for ‘could nota the momert think of other topics of conversation), the arch- bishop sere the mattr with a sharp and brief eejoinder: "Mind your ‘own busines" He was ight. So far as we humane are concerned, the devil is always ouradversary we should not enter into any kind af negotiations ‘ith him, whecher by praying for him or in other ways. His ealvation is {quite simply none of our business. Bu the devil has ale his own relation ship with God, as we learn fom the prologue of the book of Job, when Satan makes his appearence in te heavenly coure mong the other "sons ‘of God" Gob 116-277). We are, however, altogether ignarant af che precise ‘nature ofthis relationsip, ad i is fut to pry into it. Ye, ven though iis not for us to pray forthe devi, we have no right o ase that he ie «orally and irevocably excluded ffom the scope of God's mercy. We do ‘not know. In Wiegensteins words, Wiven man nich reden han, darber ‘af man schsigen® ‘The strongest point in Origents case for universalism is his analysis of Punishment. We may summarize his view by distinguishing three pri- ‘mary reasons that hare been advanced to justify the infliction of punishment. Fis ther is che reibutve argument. Those who have done evil itis claimed, themselves deserve co sulfer in proportion co the evil tat they hnave done. Oni so willie demands of justice be fulfilled: "an eye for an «je and a tooth fora tooth” (Fx. 2124). Burin the Sermon oa the Mount (Caxisc explicidl rejess his principle (Me 5:38). IF we humans ate forbid- dden by Crist o exact reribution in this way from our fellow humans, hhow much more should we refrain from stsbuting vindictive and recib- tive behavior to God. I's blasphemous to asses that the Holy Trinity is ‘vengeful, In any case, itseems contrary to justice that Gad should inflict, an infinite punishment in requital for what ie only a finite amount of wrongdoing, ‘The second line of agument insists upon the need fora deterrent. eis ‘only the prospect of hele, it ssid, chat holds us back from evi-doing, Buc why then, itmay be sked, do we need an unending, everlasting pum” Jshment to ac as an effecive deterrent? Would it not be sufficens 10 15 Wheaton nner pak hte ns een” en he rice fhe Trane agi Pept204 ‘nar mnsn NcDOM threacen prospective malefactors with «period of painful separation from. God that is exceedingly prolonged, yer no iefinite? In any ease, it is only. too obvious, especially in our own day, that the hres ofhell-fie i almost ‘oally nefective as a deterent. fin out preaching ofthe Christian frit we hope to have any significant influence on others, chen what we need ir ‘nova negative but a postive strategy: let us abandon ugly threats, and at- ‘tempt rather to evoke peopl’ seas of wonder and their capacity fo love. ‘There remains the rfrmative undersanding of punishment, which (Origen considered ro be the only view thats morally aceptable. Panish- ment, ics wo possess moral yale, has robe ao: merely retaliatory or dis- suasive but emedial. When parents infie punishment on their children, forthe state on criminals, cei aim should slays be to heal those whom ns precisely the purpose of the punishments infired upon us by God; He acts always as “our physician.” A doctor may sometimes be obliged co employ extreme measures which cause agony to his patients. (This was particularly so before the use ofanesthetice) He may cauterize ‘wound or amputate a limb. Bur this is always done with a positive end in view, s0 a co bring about the patients eventual recovery and restoration to health. So i is with God, che physician of our soule, He may inflict suffering upon us, hoch in chi life and after our death but always He does this out of tener love and with a postive purpose, so as co cleanse ut from ou sins, © purge and heal us. Ia Oxigen’ words, “The fury of God's vengeance avails tothe purging of our soul." ‘Now, if we adopt this zeformative and therapeutic view of punish ‘ment —and this isthe only reason for inflicting punishment thet can wor thily be atibured co God-—then surely such punishment should not be tusending. If the aim of punishment ito heal, chen once the healing bas | been accomplished there is no need forthe punishment ro continue. I, however, the punishment is supposed to be evecarting, itis dilficle ro se hhow itcan have any remedial or educative purpose. Ina never-ending hell there i no excape and therefore no healing, and so the infliction of pun ‘shment in such shells poineiess and immoral. This thied understanding. ‘of punishment, therefore, is incompatible with the notion of perpetual 16 On Fie Pinaipe 2306, Baten 1 On Fi Pipl Barwon punish and to change them for the betes And such, according 20. Dare We Hop forthe Salton of AIR 205 torment in ell it requires us, eather, to think in terms of some kind of purgatory afer death. But in that case this purgatory should be envisaged as thouse of healing, nota toreure chamber; = hospital, not a prison. ‘Here, in his grand vision of Gods the edie physician, Origen isa his ‘most convincing. An uncondemned universalist (Origen’s longing for the salvation of al had already brought him under suspicion in his own lfrime!® Yer there were sore atnong his spiritual «descendants who keptalive this univesel hope. The two mo notable ex- amples are to be found at the end of the fourth century: Evagrus of Pontus, monk in the Egyptian desert, and St Gregory of Nyssa, the our get brother of Se Basil the Great. Evagrus upheld and perhaps hardened the full Orjgenist taching concerning the preexistence of souls, the precosmic fll, and the final gpocatatass and for this he was condersned along with Origen in $59. Gregory of Nyssa, on the other hand, aban- sdonedi Origen’ speculations concerning preexistence and the precosmic ‘all wale holding fast co his belief in an ultimate restoration: and, sighificandy, he has never been anathematied for this either in $53 oc in ‘more recent times. In expressing fis hope that all will be saved, Gregory of Nyssa ie fully as confident 25 Origen. Hie words recall the pret 1 est tha Onto tsp ly pes mera shot he doi ope ‘sym droped in teil lp seed Rama Cae ean at te ‘af nl ae me ppg pcan et eh See my ea (quite ude te nme Tent Wah Eas dp ol of ie Chad ‘nde Tether Chron Ps, 96) 19-00 eae gee at ‘Ct ad Orton rw ante mde rd len ary chee a ‘pen at Se ny ade “Oe Boy Chita ie oni oe Shor thes 19 Forte op Origin iit. Jah Wien Te, Orig Ti Biba Phila onde Cc: SM Pe 8) Gt rho ‘tes Elbe Ct The Orn Conny Cala Cnatin oo ar ‘Gries eb wo Room Ua Pax pan Clemo fr pis 29 I One Maig aman ven to. ey fe brn scape ay Stor io mee de oR ‘Siew ds ineral deme Ore Goin se pactaens of epi Cer ly yee ten Foc206 ‘rum monn xe@o0M sficmation of Paul, “and thus God will be alli all” (x Cor 328). “When, through these long and circuitous methods," writes Gregory, "the wick- cdness which is now mingled and consolidated with our natire has been finaly expelled from i, and when all hose things that are now sunk down ine are restored to their original state, cher will ascend from the entire cation 2 usited hyma of thanksgiving... All thie is contsined in che great mystery of the Divine Incaenation.” This final restoration. Geeg- ony carly states, wil enbrace even the devil ‘Despite ths bold cir, Gregory of Nysa hes never been condemned asa heretic, biton the contrary hes honored as saint. Why should cis bbe so? Perhaps he escaped reprobation because he was Basis brother. Yet ihe was tented differsdy from his master Origen, peshaps ie was be- ‘cause, while reining Crigen’s hope inthe eventual trtmph of good over cevil, he abandoned the notion of prcesstence nd go avoided the reular- ity ofthe Origenist scheme. Whatever the explanation, the fact that Greg ‘ory has not been anathematized is certainly significant. Ie suggests that, dissociated from speculstions about precosmic fll, a carefilly qualified ‘expression of universal hope is acceptable, even within the bounds of strict orthodoxy. ‘Se Gregory of Nysais one ofthe patrons of the house of ecurenicl studies to which Tam azached in Oxford; and personally Tara delighted ‘bat this should be so. The scourging of lve A thin pic author who dared wo hope fr he lion of lls St Inne of Nineveh, honed snd loved throughout de Chan Bas st “sn the Syn” Aldough he Ine soe thee generation afer the Fifth Eeumesical Couns br was nae by he Set Ogi anah fu amend wien une eae Chand ee ae ‘dwelling in Mesopotamia far outside the bounds of the Byzantine Em- pis be wed oles othe Emperor er Conaninoptcand id not tedgatee Coane ld in 33 ecmesie Psy be wa os fetes unaware offs dares 1 Cubes Onion Maen 678.155 2 Of pad "the Newnan Church hatha nei etn esa Dare We Hope forthe Salvation of ALR 207 Particularly srking is aac’ undestanding ofl. He insists thatthe ‘ext in the New Testament abou fire, the wotm, outer darkness, andthe agnathing of teeth ae not to be understood erally and in a physical Sense. He speaks of kel or Geena a “noe” or “ineligible Hells an “efec,” not a "brane," wale the “owes darkness not «place bt the sate wichout any delight in ue knowledge and communion with Gna" “There wil be prychic weeping and grinding of et” aye Teac, “which isa gle? more hard to endure than Bre. The teh gash ing in the Age to come, then, so fr from being physial and roaterial, igiies an inner and spiritil anguish. Caro cerided ofthe story ofthe preacher who, in hs sermons on fel, dele with patel relish upon the guashing of teeth Eyenually an clesy member ofthe congregation foul bea t 20 mor. "But | have no teh” she excaimed—co which the preacher replied severely, “Teeth wil be provided.” Innac ad a beter answe Inks view, he ral toument in ell consis, notin burning by mater fr, notin any psc pain, but inthe pangs ‘of conscience thats penon sues on realizing tha ae or the has jected the love of God ‘Ao I thaeen toe who ae soup inl re omansed wih the oping ofl “Thesourgar haem om neat sessoureofhosewhoheybe come are athe hve sine aint lovee ered mere es ‘Rasa comers wich a fone “Thepaia which raw the earth re fang pins oe isha ‘hen other omen athe ae se — \Wawongo imagine hates inelar depend clone of God. {Bul he poveroflove wel eve ways tue hove woh sinne, Jbcathapessmongetsheconcar beso he ee Sin eg ii Soicie ia hall the eonron shat comes fom lave ie har torent 29 Hone 66a 76 (ls Arend A, She. Wend 305, Ml, 35,395 24 Homily) te Miles; Wench, nde a ely” Sts net pane” 3 Hom 7s Append, Sew Wena yo Ml 36 26 Ham 6 Wenn Miles) 7. che woud “pei” dow nao 2 Homa Weick, 9 le Forte mot at allo eee aan of Ssan Bek M Alae),The He of Compan Dal fang th St208 ‘rp poeeR aNEDOM ‘When I fist came across cis passage as astadent more than forty years ago, I sid co myself Tharis the only view of hell char makes any sente to ‘me. God is love St Isac cll us, and this divine love is unchanging and inethausble. God love is everywhere and embraces everything: “ICT go down to hell Thow act ere also” (Ps 136 [39] 8). Thus even those in hell ae not cut off fom the love of God. Love acts, however, in «twofold ‘way: i's joy to those wino aceeps it bue woeture to those who shut it out. In the words of George MacDonald, “The terror of God i but the other ‘side of His love eis love ouside, thst would be inside," ‘Thus chose in hell el as agonizing pain that which the ssins feel ax ‘unceding delight. God does not inflict torment upon those in hell, but it is they who torment themselves theough their wilful refuel to sespond to His love. As Georges Bernanos observes, “Hells not to love aay moze." “The love of God,” writes Viadimie Lossy, “will be an intolerable tor- ‘ment to those who have nor acquired it within themselves. From this it follows that those in hell are self-ensleved,seltimprisoned. Ultimately, stares C.S. Lewis, ‘het ae oaly two kindof people..chase whe, xy ro God, “Thy wil be ‘done, and thse whom God ey inthe end, "Thy willbe done All hat tre in Hal choose fe Withou thc tl choice tte ould be no Hell The ‘or ofl arelockad on the sd” [Now ifall chi is true—if, as Issac sas, those in hell are not cut off from the love of God, and if 3s Lewis ase, they ze elimprizoned—then ‘nay it not be that chey sil have some hope of redemption? (Indeed, the (Orthodox Church says a special prayer for them at Vespers onthe Sunday ‘of Pentecost) If divine love is constantly knocking on the door of theit ‘heart, and if that door is locked on the inside, may not the time come ‘when at long lat they respond to love's inviaton snd open the door? If the reason for ther suffering is that they reeagnize how grievously they of Sri "fe i LoS (endo: Darton, Langman Tod) Pore ‘sh vw el ee Oe, On Fr Prison 3 Gi in C8. Ge Mada dn ding Condo Gein Bi 9 fea cr de ange Pa ee Le de 96 1 The ed Thay fe Ensen Church 1 Ti Gra Dine Drom (Lao: Get Bes, 9) 47 Th obi f Pain 5. B Serabor35 Dare We Hope for the Saloation of A? 209 have sinned agains love, does isnot imply chat there il within them some spark of goodness, some possibilty of repentance snd retortion? Insc, for his pac, definitely believed that this was so. Inthe second part of hs Fomila (previously though to have been lot, bu ediscor- ced in 1985 by Dr. Sebastian Breck) Imac speaks ofa “wonderful out- come” that God wil bring vo peat the end af history: amo he oinion ta He ping rtf soe woneril outcome, ‘Bane ofimmenseand ine compaioa onthe parece povioa Ce ‘tog wich men wo the ondengof ts diet macer of (Scheana or fren oa ofthe wea fF ve and power and widom wil bce Known al the re—and owl te sere igh the woe of toda isnot he way of she comping Makes cet tol bigs serto deliver them over merely wo unending sicion Issac as to main ressnsforalieming with uch confdenot his expec tation of a “wonderful outcome” Fist, even more pasionacely than ‘Origen, rejects any suggestion that God is vengefl and vndicaive. This bh ses a blasphemy. “Fare, ther vengeance coud eer be found in that Fountain of loe and Ocean brimming with goodnes!” When God pun- Inkes us, or appears so do, che purpose ofthis pucishmentis never eib- stv and retaliatory, but exusvel formative and therapeutic: Godctastseswitloveaoforhe ake ofevenge—f be id—butseckngto Sateen tee eh tere Sms rerbuson ‘As sua insists inthe second pat, “God isnot one who requites evil, but He sets argh evi... The Kingdom and Gehenaa ae ssatters belonging to mercy.” Gehenna is nothing ele than 2 place of purging and pusfcation which helps to bring cbout God's maner plan “chat all should be saved and come co the knowledge ofthe truth” (Tim 24) Second, and more fundamentally, sae is convinced that “many wie teis cannot quench love” (Song 8). "Not even the immense wickedness ofthe demons can overcome the measute of Gods goodness," he writes, 18 Hamil 96 Bec. 3 Him ah Wendy 6; Mil 98 35 Homi 9.5.24 Bo 23‘quoting Diodote of Tarsus Unquenchable and limites as its, God's love wil evenly triumph over evil: “There exists with Him 2 single Jove and compassion which is spread out overall eration, [a ove) which {without lteation,timeles and evsasting...No part belonging to any ‘single one of all rational beings wil be lose”? Here, then, in distant Mesopotamia is one who isnot afraid eo affirm with Jllan of Norwich and T.S. Eloy, “Al shall be well, and all manner of ting hal be well” Love and freedom ‘Within the tradition of the Christian Bas, then, we have identified three ppoweul witnesses who dare co hope for the salvation of al. Other wie anesies could cerainly be cited from the Wes, paiculatly among the Anabapesn; Moravins, and Carstadelphians. Yet it has to be admired ‘that in Eascand Wes ale—bue more particularly in the West because of the influence cFSt Augustine of Hippo—the voices ried in favor of uni- versa salvation remain a small minority. Most Chistans at any rate un- sl she iwentieh century, have assumed tha the mai part ofthe human ‘ace wil ead ep in an everlasting hell “For many are called, but few ae chosen” (Mit 214). How far is such an assumption justified? Having looked a Seiptre and tation, et us now invoke reason. Drawing to- setherall thar as been sid ofr, et us mahal cree argumens in f2ver ‘of universalism and four against. In favor of universal hope ‘The power of divine love. As a God of infinite compassion, ici agued, the (Creator is aot grudging in His mercy and forgiveness but immeasurably patient. He compels no one, but He will in fect wait until each and every ‘ne of His rational creatures voluntarily responds to His love, Divine love isscronger hima the forces of darkness and evil wihin the univers, and in the end it wil prevail, “Love never ful” (1 Cor 1338); tis never ex lnausted, never comes to an end. This appeal the invincibility of divine love is che szoagest argument in favor of univesal hope. 2 Fly Beck 6, isp Theo of Mops 9 Bk 7 Homi os 7. Be 4.96 Dare We Hope forthe Salstion of AIL an ‘The exence of hell. Tiss basically 2 restatement of che fis argument. ‘As we noted whien cting Se nae the Syrian, hell is not God's rejection of| ‘humankind buc humankind’ refusal of God. It is not a punishment which God infits upon us, Buta state of mind in which we punish out selves. God does not shut the door against chose in hell; He does not \withdeaw His love ftom ther, bucieis they who deliberately harden thet ‘nears against that love. Since, then, those in bell are sill enflded in di- vine love, it remains posible tae they may some day open their hears to {his omnipresent compassion; and, when they do, they wl find that God hhas not stopped loving them. "If wear ‘thes, Fle remains faithful for ‘He cannot deny himsel” (2 Tim 213). His nature i love, and Fle cannot cease tobe tht which He is ‘The non-real of evil. Tiss an argument thc we have not so Farhad ‘ocasion wo discuss. “Tamm He who i,” 37s God to Moses atthe burning ‘bush in the Sepcuagine version of Ex 3:4; “I am the Existing One” (ego ‘imi ho on). God is Being and Realty nd He i the sole source of ll exis ‘ence. Evil, on the other hand, isin the sce sense non-being and unvel- jig: Bil and sin have no substantive existence, for they are not a “thing” ‘that God has made; they ae 2 distortion ofthe good, a parasite—not a ‘noun but an adjective. This was clearly shown to Julian of Norwich, who states inher Thirtenth Revelason: "didnot ee sin, fr I believe tha it ‘has no kind of substance, n0 share in being, nor can it be recognized ex ‘cept by the paine which it causes”™ Existence, then, is good, fori gif ftom God; and everything that xis, by the very fact of existing, retains some lnk with God, who isthe ‘only source of existence. From this it flows that nothing that exists ean bbe entirely and utterly evil. To posi something roaly evil would be 2 ‘non-sense a contradiction in terms; for euch a thing would be altogether unreal and could not scully exist. Even the devil, because he exists, stil ‘has a continuing relationship with God. Thus where there is existence, theres hope—even fr the devil, A possible conclusion from this third line of argument isnot universal salvation but conditional immorality. At the end God will indeed be “all in all" not because all atonal creanues save been saved but because ata 28 Sing mind alee an ik Thi ene Syn ow York/Ramsay/Foroace: Praise Pres, 978), 48 seecertain poine the radically wicked have simply cased to be. Cutoff fom God, the unique source of existence, they have lapsed into noa-being, At the end-time, thar i to say there willbe a resurrection ro erena life, but ‘no resurrection to eternal death; o, rather, there will be resurrection to 2 sdeachthat is final but not continuing, for will eral annihilation This notion of conditional immortality hat much co be sid in its fa- ‘or Ieisan atractve way of avoiding the need ro choose between univer. sl salvation and an unending hell. But, although it was beld by the fourth-century Aftcan author Amobius of Sica, it has otherwise lite support in eatlir tradition. The objection commonly advanced against the “conditional” standpoine is that God's gift of existence i stable and deol sod in thes that they exnnct thee hanged the fey semaine freer in their te ofejecuon, Gd hes nat eased love then, bus they have ended themselves incapable of ener span sponding ‘ota love. A parle! can thus be den betwen the mine ia heaven and the armed in hel. Te aint in heaven have not le his don bis 10 longer pes for therm ever agin totum ava from God and wo eps into sin They sill have iberty of choice, bur al thet shies ue pod Ina sinc way the dared in lll etnin a esa eedom af shoie, for they hae not ceed eo be persons. Buc al thr cis ae bad, snd it iso longer pombl for han to ascend to che dines, ‘he devil poses ftedor:—Dur not the fiedomn open. In ay afer the Lat gene there will bea "gat divorce" aed Gc chan 6, ‘ween heaea and hell wil remain oro ipa The argemen fom asic. conracy co dvi justice, 50 oen alleged, that the wicked should cojoy the same reward a the ghcoun ‘he mot harmony of th universe wl be impaed revidocs di not, czie thei jut recompense 1 Sind this angument fa les tong then tae so previo arguments. Ar Selene che Spin igh ns, oe men soto ofresibutive juice ate aogethrinpptable vo God Hes 5 Goel na of vengeance bt of forgiving ove; Hs janice i nothing her hel. The moral and pastor argument: Fal onthe ant-niverali side Jes often sid har tniveliom deprives the Christan mesage of ten of urgency and underenimatr the nots of ianstent wasn pene oughous the New Texament. Crs begin Hi public pening wich che word “Taday” (Let). See now ste acepable neste Daal, “se, ow isthe day of alvation’ (2 Cor 6). Taday now es peta © ela imei 6, yeaa oat Seren epi in be ay24 ‘nun poea mmcpoM life chat is our moment of opporssnity and decison, our time of xs, the kairor when we make the choices that determine our eternal future. If fon the other hand, we ae alloved an unlimited seties of further chances scr our death, and iFin any case we shall all end up in che same place whatever we do in this preset life en where is che challenge in the preaching ofthe Christian mesnige, and where isthe need for conversion and repentance here and aow ifthe tiumph of God’ lve is inevitable and ther is ultimately nothing for us to choose between, dacs thie not make our present acts of mora decision trivial and meaningless? Origen is aware ofthis difcalty. The doctrine of apocatartaris, he ad- Vises, ought tobe kept secret fr, i preached openly to the immatue, it svi ead them to become carles and indifferent" No doubt tis for this ‘reason that the nineteenth-cenrury Piedst theologian Cheistian Goteied ‘Barth remarks, “Anyone who does not believe in the univers restoration isan ox, but anyone who teaches i san as." Se Iseae the Syrian deals with the problem in a different way. Ie males an immeasurable difference "0 Us, he points out, whether we respond to divine love here and now oF only after countless aeons. vea hough che torment of hel is not evecast- ing it remains teuly appalling: “Nevertheless [Gehenna is grievous, even ifs chus limited in is exten: who can [poesibly) bear it” the strongest argument in vor of universal salvation isthe appeal 0 divine love, and ifthe strongest argument on the apposite side isthe peal to human feedom, then ws are brought back to che dilemma with ‘which we started: how are we t bring into concord the two principles God is love and Hluman being ae fre For the time being we cannot do ‘more than hold fst with equal fsmness to both principles at onez, while admiting that the manner of their ulkimate harmonization remains & _myntery beyond our present comprehension. What Se Paul sald abouc the reconciliation of Christianity ard Judaism is applicable also to the final “4 Ain Cit Cab Ta Og he ston of ce la ne ‘Mein are oh oye psoas alwipce + Que inf Felon, Te eo Th 4 Pa SEO Un thann gin ey Sas S ee esi Cale 5 Ln eying pey sae ‘Scetieas ere dea elsen Se cerened eed Se on 40 Boma ck Dare We Hope for he Salvation of AIP ay feconcliation of the total creation: “O the depth of the riches and.wis- dom and knowledge of God! Hove unsearchabe are His judgments and how insertable His waye!” (Rem 1233). ‘When Iam waiting at Oxford Station for the train to Landon, some- times I wall up to the northemmost etetch of the long platform wal ‘each a note: “Passengers must not proceed beyond this point. Penalty: 4650." In discussion ofthe future hope, we need a similar nie: *Theolo- sians muse not proceed beyond this poine’—Let my readers devise a suit- able penalty. Doubles, Origeis mistake was that he tried to say t00 ‘much. Ie isa fale that Tadmire rather than evecrate, but i was a mistake nonetieless, ‘Our beliein human freedom means that we have no right to categori= «ally affirm, “All mut be saved.” But ou fth in Gods love males us dare ‘to epe chat al will be saved. ether anybody set td the evel, Kaeding onthe moval doo ell exist a posibilty because fee wil exists. Yer, using inthe inex: ‘hausible attractiveness of God's love, we venture to express the hope—it ‘sno more than a hope—that inthe end ike Walter dela Mare's Fravel- ler, we shall find that there is nobody ther. Let us eave che lst word, then, with Se Silouan of Mount Athos: “Love eould not bear tha... We ust pray forall”