St Gregory of Nyssa's alleged universalism

[jollyjacobite]

The Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart, who recently published a book defending universalism, frequently asserts that his heterodox view was held by St Gregory of Nyssa. As a Doctor of the Church he has been highly esteemed for his soundness of doctrine, most specifically in his Trinitarian theology.

The majority of scholars seem to agree with Hart, claiming that Nyssa held to a form of apocatastasis whereby all creatures will be reconciled to God; some after an age of chastening in the afterlife. There does, however, appear to be a minority of scholars who contest that he taught the salvation of all.

I'd love to hear if anybody has any thoughts on the matter.

[riverrun]

Well, first, so what if did? Father's frequently err.

Second, scholars gab a lot and like to reddit-style up-signal stuff that supports their personal tastes (academics overwhelmingly seem to be uncomfortable with hell even when they affirm it). So one has to turn to the sources directly first.

Do you have St. Gregory's words on this?

[ephraimtheanglo]

Jul 19, 2020 14:25:29 GMT jollyjacobite said:

The Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart, who recently published a book defending universalism, frequently asserts that his heterodox view was held by St Gregory of Nyssa. As a Doctor of the Church he has been highly esteemed for his soundness of doctrine, most specifically in his Trinitarian theology.

The majority of scholars seem to agree with Hart, claiming that Nyssa held to a form of apocatastasis whereby all creatures will be reconciled to God; some after an age of chastening in the afterlife. There does, however, appear to be a minority of scholars who contest that he taught the salvation of all.

I'd love to hear if anybody has any thoughts on the matter.

I'd be interested to know what scholars support him. 

[starlightatdust]

I have heard anecdotally that Hart is not taken seriously in the Eastern Orthodox communion. Can any EOs confirm this?

[jollyjacobite]

Jul 19, 2020 15:41:39 GMT riverrun said:

Well, first, so what if did? Father's frequently err...Do you have St. Gregory's words on this?

It is true that even if he were to err it would not overturn the teaching of the Church. The concern, however, would be that he has been elevated to the status of doctor for his sound theology.

I believe one of the offending passages may be:

"But as for those whose weaknesses have become inveterate , and to whom no purgation of their defilement has been applied, no mystic water, no invocation of the Divine power, no amendment by repentance, it is absolutely necessary that they should come to be in something proper to their case — just as the furnace is the proper thing for gold alloyed with dross — in order that, the vice which has been mixed up in them being melted away after long succeeding ages, their nature may be restored pure again to God." (The Great Catechism, Part III, The Sacraments, Ch 35)

[jollyjacobite]

Above I mentioned one of the quotations that universalists will use from the writings of St Gregory of Nyssa.

I will also quote from the same work seeming to favour the traditional Christian understanding:

"Even if some one of the punishments in that other world be named in terms that are well known here, the distinction is still not small. When you hear the word fire, you have been taught to think of a fire other than the fire we see, owing to something being added to that fire which in this there is not; for that fire is never quenched, whereas experience has discovered many ways of quenching this; and there is a great difference between a fire which can be extinguished, and one that does not admit of extinction." (The Great Catechism, Part III, The Sacraments, Ch 40)

[riverrun]

Jul 20, 2020 0:17:19 GMT jollyjacobite said:

he has been elevated to the status of doctor for his sound theology.

As the Church has frequently clarified with respect of Thomas who is of superlative rank, even a doctor can be in error on this or that point, and they must be since the doctors at least occasionally contradict one another if even only verbally.

I'll try to check some references since I'm not as familiar with the doctor in question.

[riverrun]

Yeah, looking at it, I don't even see why we would conclude that the person is beatified. What's the whole context of that claim? The alleged necessity is odd and disjointed.

[jollyjacobite]

Jul 20, 2020 2:11:06 GMT riverrun said:

Yeah, looking at it, I don't even see why we would conclude that the person is beatified. What's the whole context of that claim? The alleged necessity is odd and disjointed.

Here is the immediate context: 

"...without the laver of regeneration it is impossible for the man to be in the resurrection; but in saying this I do not regard the mere remoulding and refashioning of our composite body; for towards this it is absolutely necessary that human nature should advance, being constrained thereto by its own laws according to the dispensation of Him Who has so ordained, whether it have received the grace of the laver, or whether it remains without that initiation: but I am thinking of the restoration to a blessed and divine condition, separated from all shame and sorrow. For not everything that is granted in the resurrection a return to existence will return to the same kind of life. There is a wide interval between those who have been purified, and those who still need purification. For those in whose life-time here the purification by the laver has preceded, there is a restoration to a kindred state. Now, to the pure, freedom from passion is that kindred state, and that in this freedom from passion blessedness consists, admits of no dispute. But as for those whose weaknesses have become inveterate , and to whom no purgation of their defilement has been applied, no mystic water, no invocation of the Divine power, no amendment by repentance, it is absolutely necessary that they should come to be in something proper to their case — just as the furnace is the proper thing for gold alloyed with dross — in order that, the vice which has been mixed up in them being melted away after long succeeding ages, their nature may be restored pure again to God. Since, then, there is a cleansing virtue in fire and water, they who by the mystic water have washed away the defilement of their sin have no further need of the other form of purification, while they who have not been admitted to that form of purgation must needs be purified by fire." (Ch 35)

He is speaking of the sacrament of baptism throughout this chapter. He appears to affirm at the start of this quotation that the sacrament is necessary for salvation. However, by the end it sounds like he is suggesting that the purification by fire could substitute for the laver of regeneration. It is hard to decipher exactly what he is trying to say though. 
 

[jollyjacobite]

Jul 19, 2020 17:21:40 GMT ephraimtheanglo said:

I'd be interested to know what scholars support him. 

Notably, Fr William Jurgens had this to say: 

"Gregory seems to be convinced, at any rate, that ultimately all men and the fallen angels with them shall return to God." (Jurgens, Faith, volume 2, page 58)

[starlightatdust]

S Gregory of Nyssa is not a Doctor of the Church in Catholicism.

Neither is S Maximus the Confessor, the other major figure who has been accused of holding to Universalism.

[jollyjacobite]

Jul 20, 2020 12:32:08 GMT starlightatdust said:

S Gregory of Nyssa is not a Doctor of the Church in Catholicism.

Neither is S Maximus the Confessor, the other major figure who has been accused of holding to Universalism.

My apologies, I confused him with St Gregory of Nazianzus who is a Doctor. You are indeed correct, thank you for the correction. 

[Basil]

Jul 19, 2020 18:07:27 GMT starlightatdust said:

I have heard anecdotally that Hart is not taken seriously in the Eastern Orthodox communion. Can any EOs confirm this?

I'm EO and have read Hart's book.  Most of the people I know in my parish have no idea who Hart and the few who do are content to more or less ignore him.  I was actually talking about Hart with my spiritual father earlier this week.  His take was that Hart should be understood as a philosopher of religion who happens to be Eastern Orthodox and not an Orthodox theologian.  

Personally, I have read Hart intermittently since my days as an Episcopalian seminarian.  I find him to be an engaging scholar, but in the class I lead at my parish whenever a catechumen/inquirer asks about him I generally advise them to move on since he can be confusing for people exploring Orthodoxy.