Thank you Fr. Tom for showing kindness and respect to every interviewer. This unbiased approach is not only humble, but inspiring and well appreciated.
Robert Fortuin here - one of the contributors and representing the "hard" universalist position. Happy to answer any questions and concerns to inquiries. The core of my position can be found starting around 1:13:10 IF God's promises in Christ are "yea and amen" then we dare not disbelieve that all will be saved. An everlasting dualism of God and evil subsisting simply isn't an option for Christians, especially so in the light of Creatio Ex Nihilo - God created everything from nothing.
@@smittycity42 Huge and infinite difference! for you would have to accept and defend a moral monster of an impotent god who upholds evil forever and created the universe knowing that his creatures would forever be damned while yet having the power to do something about it. Not to speak of having to make a mockery of the Paschal triumph of Christ, making it conditional. No bueno.
@@smittycity42 God is not mocked, you would have Hell to pay for that, give an account of your actions, especially those done willfully and with knowledge and malice. No good Smitty, no good.
@@smittycity42 Obviously 😉 Look, if you know something to be true and you are resisting it, then it can no longer be said to be in good faith, it calls into question your motivation. And since we are going with the (I hope hypothetical) situation that you know God not to be a moral monster but insist on Infernalism, that isn't in good faith. So yes the stakes are high, and the "dare not" to disbelieve God's promises in Christ, this isn't to be taken lightly. You think doubting God and spreading a false gospel is without consequences, that this is not harmful to you and others?
@@smittycity42 It is not in good faith in the scenario as you have presented it, obviously. In your own words, "I'm a heretic, God is a monster, I go around deterring people from the Christian faith."
I think the biggest issue with the idea of "hard" universalism is the distinction between two words: Can and Will. Can all be saved? - All things are possible with God. Will all be saved? - I have my doubts. As St Paisios once taught. God is capable and willing to forgive the demons and Satan. If they would simply bow down, repent and ask for forgiveness, they would be granted it, and restored to their full glory. But he also taught that although forgiveness was possible for them, it is not something that we should expect to happen. The depth of their pride and anger is such that they will not bow the knee and seek that forgiveness. That they would reject the gift as they had already rejected the Giver. I fear that just like the demons, some people when confronted with the light and presence of God would recoil from it and draw deeper into their feelings of anger, resentment, pride, etc. Thus sealing their condemnation through their own free will.
"Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."- 1 Corinthians 15:28
Perhaps a better question than “can all be saved” or “will all be saved” is “will there come a point at which salvation is no longer available to any given being?” and I think the answer to that is “no.” This speaks to the nature of God rather than to the nature of creatures.
I think the former question still leads to the affirmation of the salvation of all because 1) it's God will, and 2) it's His plan as per the cross of Christ. However the latter question better reflects those two irrefutable fundamentals of the gospel. After all that is what 2Corinthians 5:19 is saying: that God, through Christ is reconcinciling the world to Himself. The fact of the matter is both questions lead to other questions. What one discovers is which series of question distance themselves from the gospel message.
Mr. Fortuin - thank you for presenting such a clear argument! However, the argument for hard universalism seems more akin to a Roman Catholic argument than an Orthodox one. It seems to rest on logic, that non universalism creates contradictions and is not logical etc. But from an Orthodox perspective how is this relevant? Our understanding and ability to fit God's plan into our human reasoning and logic is not required. Is it not possible we are simply not capable of fully understanding the Creator of all's plan? It seems far more Orthodox in this situation to trust in the teaching of the Church even if it seems to us illogical, and to have faith that God's love and justice is perfect and thus our complete understanding is not required. So while I appreciate and greatly respect your position, I simply do not see how it is representative of Orthodoxy? Again it feels much more akin to a Roman Catholic argument. The "hope for it but do not assert as dogma" position does feel more Orthodox to me - it acknowledges the fact that we may not know for sure but that's ok. But I may be wrong and most often am! Thank you again for your time and insights!!!! In Christ, James.
Jesus was sent not but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Did you read the book or just pieces of it? Also, God speaks to the spirit. Listen. If you think God is a torturer, you don't know him.
@@CharlieBravo887 Matthew 25:31-36 says, "Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed. . . And these will go away into ETERNAL punishment, but the righteous into ETERNAL life.” Same Greek word used in one verse as a contrasting comparison. You can’t say the two uses of the same word have two entirely different meanings without circular reasoning and a pre-conceived bias: universalism. Revelation 14:9-11 says, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath...and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have NO REST, day or night." If they were annihilated out of existence, then the statement no rest day or night makes no sense. Revelation 20:10 says, "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be TORMENTED day and night FOREVER and ever. . .Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if ANYONE"S name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." By the way, the word torment is translated from the Greek word Basanismos, and it means to torture. It absolutely does NOT mean to annihilate and put out of existence, nor does mean to rehabilitate. Again, look at Strong’s Concordance, the word translated torment is Basanismos, and it means to torture.
Glad to see some people clarifying that St Gregory of Nyssa is NOT a Universalist. Sadly there are priests that are teaching the false view that St Gregory is a Universalist.
St Gregory of Nyssa clearly stated that all will eventually be reconciled to God. He is universally known to have taught this, except for a few stray squirrels who crave the idea that God will eternally reject those they cannot forgive and love because of their sins, like the brother of the prodigal son.
Traditionalist who read all of St. Gregory here. The view that he was not a universalist is ABSOLUTELY INDEFENSIBLE. He was a lot clearer than Origen. Saints make mistakes, deal with it. He lived before universalism was condemned.
Just read him! I’m being serious, anyone who claims that St Gregory was not a universalist seems to either have never read him or completely rationalize whole arguments he makes.
The confidence in universalism comes from scripture. The Bible says God desires the salvation of all. And that God can do anything, including giving an obedient and faithful heart to those who did nothing to merit this new heart and new spirit. Finally, the Bible clearly says God will do all that He desires, which we know He says He desires the salvation of all. Isaiah 46:10 I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do ALL that I please. '
Thank you Fr. Tom for showing kindness and respect to every interviewer. This unbiased approach is not only humble, but inspiring and well appreciated.
Robert Fortuin here - one of the contributors and representing the "hard" universalist position. Happy to answer any questions and concerns to inquiries. The core of my position can be found starting around 1:13:10 IF God's promises in Christ are "yea and amen" then we dare not disbelieve that all will be saved. An everlasting dualism of God and evil subsisting simply isn't an option for Christians, especially so in the light of Creatio Ex Nihilo - God created everything from nothing.
@@smittycity42 Huge and infinite difference! for you would have to accept and defend a moral monster of an impotent god who upholds evil forever and created the universe knowing that his creatures would forever be damned while yet having the power to do something about it. Not to speak of having to make a mockery of the Paschal triumph of Christ, making it conditional. No bueno.
@@smittycity42 God is not mocked, you would have Hell to pay for that, give an account of your actions, especially those done willfully and with knowledge and malice. No good Smitty, no good.
@@smittycity42 Obviously I implore you not to persist in rebellion, and obviously it is no longer in good faith.
@@smittycity42 Obviously 😉 Look, if you know something to be true and you are resisting it, then it can no longer be said to be in good faith, it calls into question your motivation. And since we are going with the (I hope hypothetical) situation that you know God not to be a moral monster but insist on Infernalism, that isn't in good faith. So yes the stakes are high, and the "dare not" to disbelieve God's promises in Christ, this isn't to be taken lightly. You think doubting God and spreading a false gospel is without consequences, that this is not harmful to you and others?
@@smittycity42 It is not in good faith in the scenario as you have presented it, obviously. In your own words, "I'm a heretic, God is a monster, I go around deterring people from the Christian faith."
Thank you for this rich discussion. Hopeful, to be sure!
What a beautiful handling of the topic with such profound insights from each of the contributors. Thank you for this.
Thank you for watching and the kind words
I think the biggest issue with the idea of "hard" universalism is the distinction between two words: Can and Will.
Can all be saved? - All things are possible with God.
Will all be saved? - I have my doubts.
As St Paisios once taught. God is capable and willing to forgive the demons and Satan.
If they would simply bow down, repent and ask for forgiveness, they would be granted it, and restored to their full glory.
But he also taught that although forgiveness was possible for them, it is not something that we should expect to happen.
The depth of their pride and anger is such that they will not bow the knee and seek that forgiveness.
That they would reject the gift as they had already rejected the Giver.
I fear that just like the demons, some people when confronted with the light and presence of God would recoil from it and draw deeper into their feelings of anger, resentment, pride, etc. Thus sealing their condemnation through their own free will.
This reminds me of The Great Divorce by CS Lewis.
"Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."- 1 Corinthians 15:28
Perhaps a better question than “can all be saved” or “will all be saved” is “will there come a point at which salvation is no longer available to any given being?” and I think the answer to that is “no.” This speaks to the nature of God rather than to the nature of creatures.
I think the former question still leads to the affirmation of the salvation of all because 1) it's God will, and 2) it's His plan as per the cross of Christ. However the latter question better reflects those two irrefutable fundamentals of the gospel. After all that is what 2Corinthians 5:19 is saying: that God, through Christ is reconcinciling the world to Himself.
The fact of the matter is both questions lead to other questions. What one discovers is which series of question distance themselves from the gospel message.
Thank you so much for this series you've done! Many great interviews with many great minds on both sides. God bless! 🙏☦️
The philosopher does a lot of question begging. Just because my English Bible states eternal punishment does not mean that it what the Greek meant.
John 3:36, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."
Mr. Fortuin - thank you for presenting such a clear argument! However, the argument for hard universalism seems more akin to a Roman Catholic argument than an Orthodox one. It seems to rest on logic, that non universalism creates contradictions and is not logical etc. But from an Orthodox perspective how is this relevant? Our understanding and ability to fit God's plan into our human reasoning and logic is not required. Is it not possible we are simply not capable of fully understanding the Creator of all's plan? It seems far more Orthodox in this situation to trust in the teaching of the Church even if it seems to us illogical, and to have faith that God's love and justice is perfect and thus our complete understanding is not required. So while I appreciate and greatly respect your position, I simply do not see how it is representative of Orthodoxy? Again it feels much more akin to a Roman Catholic argument. The "hope for it but do not assert as dogma" position does feel more Orthodox to me - it acknowledges the fact that we may not know for sure but that's ok. But I may be wrong and most often am! Thank you again for your time and insights!!!! In Christ, James.
Impossible to hear "many are called but few are chosen" and "wide is the way that leads to destruction" and still hope for the salvation of all.
Jesus was sent not but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Did you read the book or just pieces of it?
Also, God speaks to the spirit. Listen. If you think God is a torturer, you don't know him.
@@CharlieBravo887 You say this with a high level of smugness that you'd never admit to.
@@CharlieBravo887 Matthew 25:31-36 says, "Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed. . . And these will go away into ETERNAL punishment, but the righteous into ETERNAL life.” Same Greek word used in one verse as a contrasting comparison. You can’t say the two uses of the same word have two entirely different meanings without circular reasoning and a pre-conceived bias: universalism.
Revelation 14:9-11 says, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath...and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have NO REST, day or night." If they were annihilated out of existence, then the statement no rest day or night makes no sense. Revelation
20:10 says, "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be TORMENTED day and night FOREVER and ever. . .Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if ANYONE"S name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." By the way, the word torment is translated from the Greek word Basanismos, and it means to torture. It absolutely does NOT mean to annihilate and put out of existence, nor does mean to rehabilitate. Again, look at Strong’s Concordance, the word translated torment is Basanismos, and it means to torture.
Truth is not determined by how people “functionally” use it.
Thanks. I liked this.
Glad to see some people clarifying that St Gregory of Nyssa is NOT a Universalist. Sadly there are priests that are teaching the false view that St Gregory is a Universalist.
St Gregory of Nyssa clearly stated that all will eventually be reconciled to God. He is universally known to have taught this, except for a few stray squirrels who crave the idea that God will eternally reject those they cannot forgive and love because of their sins, like the brother of the prodigal son.
Traditionalist who read all of St. Gregory here. The view that he was not a universalist is ABSOLUTELY INDEFENSIBLE. He was a lot clearer than Origen. Saints make mistakes, deal with it. He lived before universalism was condemned.
Just read him! I’m being serious, anyone who claims that St Gregory was not a universalist seems to either have never read him or completely rationalize whole arguments he makes.
The confidence in universalism comes from scripture. The Bible says God desires the salvation of all. And that God can do anything, including giving an obedient and faithful heart to those who did nothing to merit this new heart and new spirit. Finally, the Bible clearly says God will do all that He desires, which we know He says He desires the salvation of all. Isaiah 46:10 I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do ALL that I please. '