The Restoration of All: Universalism in Early Christianity (part 11)

Summary and Conclusion

    Over the course of this series, we’ve looked at the reception and development of the doctrine of universal restoration over the history of the early church. Most of these posts have dealt with the theologians and fathers of the first five centuries of the church, and their views on the ultimate fate of unbelievers. We can roughly categorize these thinkers into three categories – universalism, infernalism, and annihilationism/conditionalism:

Certain universalists: Clement of Alexandria; Bardaisan of Edessa; Origen of Alexandria; Gregory Thaumaturgus; Didymus the Blind; Macarius of Magnesia; Marius Victorinus; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gregory of Nyssa; Evagrius Ponticus; Diodore of Tarsus; Theodore of Mopsuestia; Theodoret of Cyrrhus; Jerome of Stridon (before his turn against Origen)

Probable universalists: Clement of Rome; Odes of Solomon; some apocryphal writings (esp. Apocalypse of Peter); Dionysius the Great; Pamphilus of Caesarea; Methodius of Olympus; Anthony the Great; Novatian (?); Eusebius of Caesarea; Marcellus of Ancyra; Athanasius of Alexandria; Basil of Caesarea; Ambrose of Milan; Synesius of Cyrene; Paulinus of Nola; Peter Chrysologus (?); Cyril of Alexandria (?)

Certain annihilationists/conditionalists: Arnobius of Sicca

Probable annihilationists/conditionalists: Didache; Epistle of Barnabas; Shepherd of Hermas; Polycarp of Smyrna

Certain infernalists: Tertullian of Carthage; Minucius Felix; Cyprian of Carthage; Lactantius; Jerome of Stridon (after his turn against Origen); Augustine of Hippo; Leo the Great

Probable infernalists: Tatian of Adiabene; Hilary of Poitiers; Epiphanius of Salamis; Theophilus of Alexandria (?)

    There are also some church fathers that aren’t easily categorized within this schema. Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Theophilus of Antioch have statements that point toward annihilationism or conditionalism, but also statements that point toward universalism. Justin Martyr's and Hippolytus’ writings have statements that point toward annihilationism and infernalism. Aphrahat the Persian was a conditionalist with regard to the most wicked dead, and an infernalist with regard to less wicked sinners. Ephrem the Syrian was a hopeful universalist, which means he hoped for the restoration of all people but was not certain of it, as were possibly John Cassian and John Chrysostom. Rufinus of Aquileia was simply unsure of the ultimate fate of the wicked, and admitted as much in his writings against Jerome.

    What’s clear from this is that universalism was a fairly popular view in the first five centuries of the church, and in fact the majority position in the East during the third and fourth centuries. In the first two centuries, most church fathers didn’t have a clearly developed and/or articulated position on the ultimate fate of unbelievers, and the first systematic thinker on this point was Origen of Alexandria, who developed his Christian universalism in opposition to ‘gnostic’ heresies. His influence helped to popularize the doctrine of universal restoration in the East and, eventually, in the West with theologians like Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome of Stridon, and John Cassian who adopted many of Origen’s ideas. However, the ‘Origenist’ controversy of the early fifth century and the influence of Augustine (who was an anti-universalist) reduced the popularity of universalism, especially in the West where it effectively disappeared.

    In the last two posts, we surveyed the fate of Christian universalism after the fifth century. The universal restoration had some influential proponents in the sixth century, such as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Theodore of Caesarea, both of whom held a radical ‘Origenist’ form of this doctrine. ‘Origenism’ was condemned at the fifth ecumenical council in 553, which reduced the popularity of universalism in the East even further. However, the doctrine of universal restoration was maintained in a non-‘Origenist’ form by the seventh-century theologian Maximus the Confessor. In the Syriac Church of the East, where the fifth ecumenical council was never accepted, Christian universalism maintained a respectable status even into the second millennium. The ninth-century systematic theologian John Scotus Eriugena held to the doctrine of universal restoration, although he tried to reconcile it with Augustinian infernalism. Finally, universalism existed in scattered pockets on the periphery of Christianity up to the Reformation.

The roots of Christian universalism

    The reason that universalism was so popular in early Christianity is, I argue, because it makes sense within the Christian mutation of second-Temple Jewish thought about God’s true enemy. As I showed in a few earlier posts – following the research of N. T. Wright – a major point of disagreement between the new Jesus movement and mainstream second-Temple Judaism was over the nature and identity of “the enemy.” [1] After oppression under several pagan empires, the mainstream of second-Temple Judaism identified “the enemy” with the pagans and pagan empire itself, and believed that the gentiles would be utterly destroyed when God’s kingdom arrived (e.g., Ps Sol 17:21–32; 1QSb 5.23–293; Wis 3:7–8; 5:17–6:5; 4 Ezra 13:3-11, 25-38).

    Jesus turned this picture on its head by identifying “the enemy” not with the gentiles, but with the dark forces that corrupt the pagans, which he also saw at work behind the Israelite leadership of his day. The problem isn’t with the pagans, or rather isn’t just with the pagans; it’s a universal problem affecting Jew and gentile alike. Paul expanded further on this point and identified “the enemy” with sin and death itself: the kingdom of God will arrive not when the gentiles are destroyed, but when “the last enemy, death, is abolished” (1 Cor 15:24–28). [1] “Our struggle,” Paul (or one of his followers) tells us, “is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12).

    If the enemy is not to be identified with any individual humans or class of humans, but with the sin and death that plague all humans, then God’s victorious defeat of the enemy would imply the restoration of all humanity. The other three options – annihilationism, conditionalism, and infernalism – imply something less than God’s total victory over the enemy: they imply that sin and death succeed in permanently corrupting a part of God’s good creation. These options point to a kind of dualism, where part of God’s creation is evil (or somehow becomes identified with its evil). With this in mind, it’s easy to see why universalism was so popular in the first few centuries of Christianity, even though mainstream Christianity eventually came to accept infernalism in tension with its opposition to dualism.

The patristic doctrine of universalism

    For the early church fathers who taught universal restoration, this doctrine existed within a wider, interconnected theological framework. There were a number of other beliefs that these early patristic universalists shared, especially (1) creaturely freedom of choice, (2) the inherent goodness of God’s creation, (3) the restorative nature of God’s punishment, and (4) the central importance of Jesus Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection.

    Creaturely freedom of choice. Against the ‘gnostic’ groups and Manichaeans who believed that creatures are either morally good or evil by nature, these church fathers held that every creature has the freedom to choose good or evil. This free will isn’t set against God’s sovereignty and providence. For example, John Cassian says that “God’s grace and free will seem opposed to each other, but are really in harmony... God works all things in us, and yet all can be ascribed to free will” (Conf XIII.11, 18). Rather, it’s set against the view that our moral choices are determined by our internal (good or evil) nature.

    The goodness of God’s creation. Also against the ‘gnostics’ and Manichaeans, the church fathers believed that God’s creation is inherently good. Because God is good – indeed Goodness itself – anything that he creates must be good. Therefore, all creatures (even the devil) are intrinsically good in their substance. Evil exists only as a privation, a failure to live up to God’s good purpose, and comes from the misuse of creaturely free will. No one could ever be wholly evil, because evil is a privation, and to be wholly evil would be to cease to exist: a “wholly evil being” is a metaphysical impossibility.

    God’s restorative punishment. The patristic universalists believed that God punishes in order to restore his creatures, against Marcionite ‘gnosticism’ which pitted divine goodness against divine justice. God is good – indeed Goodness itself – so he would not intentionally act to harm any creature. Furthermore, God is impassible, and could not become angry toward anyone (except metaphorically). Thus, everything that God does is intended to restore the goodness within his creatures, and ‘harms’ only their evil – which they may perceive as painful insofar as they identify with their evil.

    Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection. Despite the way their view was sometimes caricatured, these church fathers believed that Jesus Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection were central to the restoration of creation. When he became human, Christ united divine nature with created and human nature; in his death, he recapitulated and nullified all sin and death; and his resurrection guaranteed the resurrection and restoration of the entire creation. Origen is clear that the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ is what guaranteed the universal restoration, and God’s love in Jesus Christ is why no one will ever fall again after all have been restored (Comm in Rom V.12–16).

    The universal restoration. Taken together, these doctrines point to the eventual restoration of all people, and indeed the whole creation. Everything that God creates is inherently good in its substance, but evil is introduced into the creation against God’s good purpose by the misuse of creaturely free will. Since rational creatures always have this freedom of choice, even the most evil people can move from evil to goodness (or vice versa), and God’s restorative punishment always leads us toward restoration. However, even this doesn’t guarantee the final restoration of anyone: only through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has God chosen to defeat evil once and for all, and to restore and deify the whole creation.

Dispelling myths about patristic universalism

    Having looked at the views of many early church fathers on the ultimate fate of evil and unbelievers, we’re in a position to dispel some myths about universalism in the early church. One idea that’s sometimes spread or encouraged by modern Christian universalists is that Augustine was the first infernalist, which is false. Even though Augustine’s influence ensured that infernalism (and a fairly extreme version of infernalism at that) became the dominant view in the West, the doctrine of eternal torment was around well before him, and was popularized by Tertullian of Carthage at the turn of the third century. Tatian of Adiabene in the mid-second century was also an infernalist, but he later converted from orthodox Christianity to Valentinian ‘gnosticism’ (perhaps unsurprising, seeing as infernalism lends itself to a kind of dualism).

    Another myth spread by some modern Christian infernalists is that universalism was a fringe view in the early church: it was believed by Origen (along with other strange views), and perhaps also by Gregory of Nyssa, but no other major church fathers. This is also false. As we’ve seen, the doctrine of universal restoration was accepted by many church fathers before and after Origen, and became the majority position of the Eastern church in the third and fourth centuries. Origen was the first one to systematize his theology, so his universalism was much more developed than any earlier Christian writer, but he was certainly not the only universalist, and his doctrine of universal restoration was very influential on the later church.

    Finally, I want to dispel the idea that I’ve proven in this series that two-thirds of the early church was universalist (see the list above). This study wasn’t comprehensive, since I was mainly focusing on the reception of the doctrine of universal restoration, and not the views of every writer in the early church on the ultimate fate of unbelievers. The list above isn’t intended to give the correct proportion of belief in universalism, annihilation/conditionalism, and infernalism in the early church, but to show that the universal restoration really was a popular doctrine in the first centuries of Christianity. In fact, the theological heroes of the first through sixth ecumenical councils (that is, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Caesarea, and Maximus the Confessor) were probably all universalists. [2]

______________________________

[1] See my posts “The coming wrath: God’s kingdom at hand“ and “Reading Romans narratively (part 2)“; this is dealt with in much greater detail by N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996), 446–63; Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 737–72.

[2] The least certain of these is Cyril of Alexandria, who has statements that could be interpreted to support both universalism and infernalism. Theodore of Caesarea was both the ‘hero’ and ‘villain’ of the fifth ecumenical council, since his Christology was vindicated at the first session of this council and his ‘Origenism’ condemned at the second session.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Early Church, Genesis, and Evolution

    Recently, I’ve been exploring the writings of the early church fathers more deeply, and I’ve found many resources there that can help us...