A Heartfelt Rejoinder to Eugenia Constantinou: Discovering the Orthodox Phronema in Universalism (Part Two)

Universal salvation in its barest bones is the belief that all beings will eventually be saved as the tormenting pains of hell will end. Universalism is not a fad of modernity or a symptom of a dying Christianity. The belief that all will be saved has deep roots in the decades surrounding Christ. There were several Rabbinical schools in first-century Judaism that differed widely from one another, but the two main schools were the Hillel and Shammai. Both believed in an afterlife. Both taught that either the wicked will remain in Gehenna eternally or some sort of Final Judgement will eventually annihilate the souls of the wicked from existence, or even that the wicked will suffer in Gehenna for an undefined period of time and then be exalted into the heavenly realms. Closely connected to the third, several prayers even centered on the explicit restoration of Israel with the whole world. Other than the "orthodox" Rabbinical schools, there was a mystical group of first-century Jews known as the Essenes. The Essene texts we have today, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, taught various views. Some taught that all the nations other than Israel would be destroyed, some taught that all the nations would suffer but are unclear about whether destruction is involved; yet others taught, mirroring the Rabbinical schools in some ways, that all humans will be exalted into the status of the angels (incorporating especially Daniel 12:3).¹

This early Rabbinical record of eschatology is somewhat mirrored in the early centuries of the Church. St Paul was almost certainly a universalist in that he believed all beings will eventually be joyfully reconciled to Christ. I extensively argue for this in Chapter 5 of my Grace Abounds, so I shall merely list the most relevant scriptural evidence and apologize for not taking the time to argue in favor of it in this medium: Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28; Philippians 2:10-11; and whether or not Paul himself wrote it (which I make the case for being universalist regardless of authenticity) Colossians 1:15-20. Regarding St John of Patmos’s heavenly visions that form the Apocalypse of John (Book of Revelation), if one presupposes an eschatological reading of the text is justified, rather than solely a historical interpretation of the text as referring to events surrounding the fall of the Second Temple in 70 AD, it certainly leaves open the universalist conclusion, but, I argue in Chapter 9 (contra many of my fellow universalists), the Apocalypse does not claim with certainty that all will be saved. There are other universalist texts in the New Testament, but there are also some difficult passages to reconcile with universalism; the most notable is Matthew 25:26, but even in this case, the argument that it teaches eternal hell is significantly weakened by the use of the polysemic adjective aiónios or "unto the Age."²

Looking outside the New Testament to the patristic period (100-450 AD), universalism was a widespread belief and not relegated to the fringes of the faith. It is hard to imagine this would be true if some, though not necessarily all, New Testament scribes did not teach the doctrine. Ilaria Ramelli’s 2013 tome, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, and her articles leading up to its release and the articles released after very successfully make the case for this. In the Introduction of Grace Abounds, I developed a rigorous methodology based on her scholarship and others for weighing the credence that a figure believed in universalism. I shall not reproduce everything here, but some prominent names other than Origen of Alexandria and St Gregory of Nyssa include St Clement of Alexandria, very likely St Basil the Great, very likely St Jerome the Great, very likely St Ambrose of Milan, very likely St Cyril of Jerusalem; I provide another fifteen or so names, many of them known to almost anyone who considers themselves a committed reader of the Fathers. So while one does not have to go far to find those who taught the belief in eternal hell, such as St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian, St Augustine of Hippo in his late writings, and St John Chrysostom, one also does not have to go far to find those who taught universalism.

Contemporary sources partly verify this. St Basil the Great reported in his Rule for Monastics that a "great majority" [hoi polloi tōn anthrōpōn] of Christians taught that punishment in the Age to come would only be temporary; in Greek, the "great majority of the human race." He does not state his personal beliefs on the matter, but in other texts, he is clearer about his support. St Augustine of Hippo makes a similar statement in his late text Handbook to Laurentius that a "great many" [immo quam plurimi] of Christians were universalists. Despite his disagreement with universalism by this point in his life, he explicitly states that these Christians are not in opposition to the sacred Scriptures. Much to his chagrin, universalism was as pious of a position as his own. 

However, universalism’s zeal and popularity eventually faded. By the sixth century, universalism only existed on the fringes of Christianity, with some exceptions. St Isaac the Syrian and St John Dalyatha come to mind, as does very likely St Maximus the Confessor a century prior, though the latter was not outspoken like the former two; many like to say he maintained an “honorable silence.” Other exceptions exist, such as the applauded universalist tradition that remained in the Church of the East communion up to the fourteenth century;³ and the sixteenth-century English theologians known as the “Cambridge Platonists,” who, for the first time since a century or so after the Great Schism in 1054, reintroduced much of the British Isles to the Eastern Fathers. Even still, universalists must admit an undeniable fact: From the sixth century to the present day, universalism has been a small minority position in the Church, and non-universalism, the belief that eternal conscious torment exists, has been the vast majority position in the Church.⁴

Controversy Strikes

What happened? Several Orthodox theologians today claim that if universalism ever had any prominence in the Church, it was nevertheless condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) in 553. Emperor Justinian I explicitly called Constantinople II to condemn the Three Chapters, which refers to the persons and writings of Theodore of Mopuestia, certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and the letter to Mari the Persian that Ibas of Edessa wrote; the latter figures were not condemned.⁵ Justinian condemned these writings, and persons in the case of Theodore of Mopuestia, of peddling the heretical doctrine of Nestorianism. Historians debate just how coherent the catch-all term of “Nestorianism” is, but in short, Justinian accused these figures of teaching positions related to the idea that Jesus was two independent persons, one divine and one human; the Council of Chalcedon condemned this teaching a century prior. Despite his explicit purpose of calling the council, “Origen” was condemned by name in Canon 11 of the conciliar documents. Some scholars claim this was a later interpolation because of the contextual oddities surrounding his name in the list.⁶ Granting those oddities, I still make the case in Chapter 10 of Grace Abounds that Origen’s name was originally in Canon 11. So Origen was condemned by name. That much is settled, but not much else. It is an affront to St Paul’s invocation for us in 2 Corinthians 3:6 to trust the “spirit” and not the “letter of the law” if we shut the book at this point. To conclude that because Origen was condemned by name in Constantinople II, Origen’s theology is condemned, and universalism with it, is a claim that necessitates historical justification. 

Those Orthodox theologians do not often justify this beyond pointing to Origen’s condemnation in Canon 11.⁷ Some will admit that Origen was unfairly condemned since the historical evidence seems to support this, but there still must be a reason why Origen’s name was included. They often claim that we must trust that Constantinople II was faithfully received in the Church since the Holy Spirit is always working in the Church. I trust that the Holy Spirit is working in the Church, too, so it is important to note that in the extant Latin acts of Constantinople II, Origen’s name is never mentioned outside of Canon 11. A single mention, with no justification as to why it is there. Naturally, the good historian desires to dig deeper into this mention. What they find is quite shocking. 

Putting aside the nine Origenist anathemas of 443 sent by Justinian’s imperial edict, of which there is much less mystery, there were fifteen Origenist anathemas written in 553 that are historically controversial in modern scholarship. The legend goes that fifteen anathemas were produced and directed at Origenist doctrine by the bishops who met for Constantinople II. These fifteen anathemas were formally received at the council, which led to Origen’s name on Canon 11. Much of this story traces back to Cyril of Scythopolis, a commentator writing in 558. Yet many scholars doubt his aptitude for truth. For one, Cyril was not in any ecclesial position to have access to the original Greek acts of 553 that, according to this claim, would have included the fifteen anathemas. Fr Richard Price, the leading living scholar on the ecumenical councils, responded in private correspondence that his knowledge is “too general” to suggest direct knowledge of the proceedings. Other studies show convincingly how Cyril was an exceptionally biased opponent of Origen’s theology. We must turn to a more reliable source than Cyril. The problem is that he is our only contemporaneous witness who reported on the proceedings of Constantinople II. Witnesses centuries later were even less reliable.⁸

Because of this, the vast majority of contemporary scholars, following the hypothesis of a late nineteenth-century German scholar, claim that the fifteen anathemas were not from the council, nor received by the council, but rather were from an earlier council that met sometime in late winter 552 or early spring 553. Justinian and his advisors composed these anathemas and then ordered the patriarch to present them to the bishops, who presented them in Constantinople. Cyril fudged his attestation of the anathemas to Constantinople II itself, probably since this was the only council that he, as a layperson, knew was happening in 553; and he was unaware of the synod that met before the formal opening of Constantinople II, where the fifteen anathemas were drafted. Some unknowns remain with this view. Two are that we do not know when this pre-synod meeting occurred nor who attended; at most, three patriarchs could have attended. Despite our ignorance, this seems to be the most likely explanation for the origin of the anti-Origenist anathemas of 553. 

The anathemas vary widely in how accurately they correspond to Origen’s theology. It is clear that much of the theological language in the anathemas does not come from Origen but rather from his later follower Evagrius Ponticus and sixth-century Origenists, who would have been intimately known to the Palestinian bishops in attendance. The theology behind the anathemas is certainly Nestorian, which tracks with why the council was called but is wholly anachronistic when applied to Origen, who lived more than a hundred years before Nestorius was born. But that would not have minded Justinian in the slightest, assuming he even knew this, which is unlikely he did. In the sixth century, the term “Origenism” was used to condemn anyone and everyone who ever so slightly diverted from what Justinian presented as Tradition. Elizabeth Clark writes, “At times, [the charge of Origenism] was so malleable that Origen's theology was often obscured in the clamor of contemporary debate.”¹¹ The fifteen anathemas are a great case study. Origen certainly did not believe that the state of angels originates from the soul (as Anathema 5 claims); Christ during his passion sequence took on various bodies and became an angel (as Anathema 7 claims); the Harrowing of Hades was not done by Christ but rather a mind Monad (as Anathema 9 claims); Jesus’s post-resurrection body was spherical (as Anathema 10 claims), and so on. If Origen did believe some of the other beliefs condemned in other anathemas, as some of the language does match Origen, then this was mostly rooted out of his theology by the time of his late writings. 

Theologians often evolve in their understanding over time as they learn more intellectually and spiritually. St Paul is as good of an example as any. When Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, his second written letter in the New Testament after Galatians, he responded to a situation in Thessalonica where everyone was all prepped for the Second Coming of Christ. Like many early Christians, Paul expected that Christ would return in his lifetime. Most New Testament scholars think he died believing this, and 2 Thessalonians was written by a later disciple of Paul several decades after his death. However, since Constantinou assumes that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, she must believe that Paul did not die believing that Christ would return in his lifetime.¹² She must claim that, at some point in life, Paul stopped holding on to the belief in an immediate Second Coming (taught clearly in 1 Thessalonians 4) and instead began to believe the mantra, which would sweep later Christian communities, that lots of signs of the end times must occur before the Second Coming. Whether or not Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians is irrelevant. The point is that since Constantinou accepts that theologians, even the great St Paul, can change their minds, we should not hold Origen as accountable as we would otherwise for his earlier beliefs. 

A Contender for Heresy?

One anathema may cause trouble even with this stipulation. Anathema 12 reads, “If anyone says that the heavenly powers, all human beings, the devil, and the spirits of wickedness will be united to God the Word in just the same way as the mind they call Christ, which is in the form of God and emptied itself, as they assert, and that the kingdom of Christ will have an end, let him be anathema.”¹³ Doesn’t this support the “traditional” claim that Origen as a theologian and universalism as a whole is condemned? There are three major issues with using Anathema 12 to argue that Origen and universalism were condemned. Two can be mentioned. First, the evidence is unclear if Origen believed the devil would be saved. He strongly denies this in a letter sent to his Alexandrian friends. Unlike Origen, St Gregory of Nyssa and later universalist saints were adamant that the devil would be saved.¹⁴ Second, Origen never taught that the “kingdom of Christ will have an end.” Origen sometimes mentioned the idea of an “after” in connotation to eternal life, but this was not to say that the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of Christ, will come to an end. 

What Origen meant by this, as did St Gregory of Nyssa, St Maximus the Confessor, and even St Dumitru of Staniloae of blessed memory (though he did not think all would be involved), is that eternal life will no longer be experienced temporally; but will instead be a non-durational abiding in the divine life of God. Origen’s belief is perfectly Orthodox. A universalist and a non-universalist can both hold to this. In the scholarly opinion of Fr Richard Price, Anathema 12 “doesn’t constitute a condemnation of saner and more sober varieties of universalism.” Put otherwise: Anathema 12 does not in any way, shape, or form condemn the universalist doctrine held by ancient forebears such as St Gregory of Nyssa or the universalist doctrine held by pious Orthodox today such as Fr Aidan Kimel, Fr John Behr, and David Bentley Hart. This also does not actually condemn Origen’s theology and thus him as a person; condemned in name, but not spirit. Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev says that because modern scholarship brings to light misinterpretations of conciliar decisions, “It is possible to justify a theologian or Church leader who was condemned at an Ecumenical Council.”¹⁵ As Fr Georges Florovsky also notes, in line with the scholars that would later study this in much more depth, “The council is not above the church: this was the attitude of the ancient church.”¹⁶ If the Church has seen the error of her past ways it is fully in her power to correct them. As explained, she did this with the Trinity.¹⁷

Tradition and the Difficulty of Slavery's Acceptance

Since it is clear that universalism was not condemned at Constantinople II, it is worth revisiting Constantinou’s claim that consensus does not establish the truth of a doctrine. In Part One, the Nicene Trinity was provided as an example. Another one, perhaps even more analogous to universalism’s ecclesial reception, is the institution of slavery. The only apostle who commented on slavery is St Paul in the Letter to Philemon. Scholars debate whether he argued against slavery as an institution or if he was just in opposition to the specific case of Onesimus being kept by his master Philemon; particularly, Candida Moss’s recent scholarship makes it difficult to claim Paul was in opposition to slavery as an institution, considering he likely had scribal slaves or his Roman financial patron(s) did.¹⁸ And even if I grant that Paul was opposed to slavery overall, his comrades in the early Church were few. Origen of Alexandria, St Gregory of Nyssa, and St Augustine of Hippo were against the institution and argued against it from theological and moral grounds. Many Fathers were ambivalent about slavery, but others like St Gregory the Theologian and St John Chrysostom adamantly argued in favor of it. The issue of slavery was briefly approached at twelve Western local councils beginning in the fourth century and ending in the twelfth century.¹⁹ Slavery is not mentioned in any ecumenical councils or Eastern local councils. This is not to let the West off easy. No Western local council ever condemned the institution itself; rather, slavery was critiqued in minor ways. 

For example, the Council of Gangra in 341 explicitly upheld slavery and declared that priests who teach slaves to resist their masters are anathema. The Council of Aix-La-Chapelle in 816 even provided a much-desired theological justification for slavery: The sin of servitude was part of humanity’s inheritance from original sin. On the other hand, councils like the Council of Narbonne in 589 declared that both slaves and free people were barred from working on Sundays since it was the holy day. Due to slavery’s ambiguous ecclesial reception at several local councils and its contentious reception among early Fathers that very soon became (or perhaps already was) an implicit Church consensus in support of slavery as an institution, I suggest that slavery and the doctrine of universal salvation are in a similar spot because of their respective ecclesial judgments. 

As summarized earlier, the doctrine of universal salvation qua universal salvation has never been condemned in any ecumenical council. Certain positions allegedly related to universalism were condemned. Notably, the belief that all the men and demons will be saved, become consubstantial with Christ, and Christ’s kingdom will end. However, there has never been any ecumenical conciliar statement made condemning any belief along the lines of “all created beings will be saved.” The positions condemned in the fifteen anathemas are neither necessary nor sufficient to believe that “all created beings will be saved.” This is similar to how certain beliefs regarding slavery were condemned that are neither nor sufficient to be in support of slavery. 

Slavery is also in a similar position to universalism because despite there not being a single conciliar blanket statement denouncing the institution, one would be very hard-pressed to find a large number of Orthodox Christians today who believe that slavery is a just institution. However, belief in the abolition of slavery is an extremely modern phenomenon. The recognition that slavery is theologically and morally unjust did not become a consensus in the Church, one can only harken, until about a century or a little more ago. On a conservative estimate, this leaves roughly 1,700 years where the justness of slavery was the implicit consensus of the Church. Once we reach the second millennium, this is practically unquestioned. Adopting the view that the Church consensus is Tradition, slavery is a just institution; God has revealed this truth by allowing His Church to remain in this belief for over millennia. Since this is not something that an Orthodox theologian today would accept, it is odd that so many accept that the Church consensus could not have remained for, let’s say, 1,500 years in implicit (not necessarily though often explicit) error regarding the truth of universalism. Constantinou is right to emphasize that Church consensus does not equal Tradition. Still, she will freely state that, in the case of those who do not want to recognize St Augustine of Hippo as a saint, if this were to occur, it would require the “consensus of the Church over a long period of time.”¹⁹ The above estimate that the Church maintained a consensus view for 1,700 years that slavery is a just institution seems like a worthy candidate to fit a “long period of time.” This type of thinking seems arbitrary since we all agree that slavery is not a just institution.

The Circularity of Phronema

Constantinou’s response to this would likely reference the apophatic nature of the Orthodox phronema: When you know something fits the phronema, you know it. We know slavery doesn’t fit the Orthodox phronema even though many lay people and saints thought it did for millennia. I have no intrinsic qualms with this apophatic stance, but as contemporary Orthodox theologians have recognized in the case of the neo-patristic revival of apophatic theology in the twentieth century, sometimes apophatic can be too apophatic. In the case of neo-patristic theology, if we view God as so beyond language itself and, for lack of a better phrase, that there is “nothing like Him” (Quran 42:11), then God becomes a mere abstraction of the mind. We seem to be at a critical point where an appeal to apophaticism concerning the Orthodox phronema becomes a circular argument. 

I, the wielder of Orthodox phronema in the year 2024 living in the United States, know that slavery is morally and theologically wrong because I can point to texts like Genesis 1:27, which says that all are made in the image of God. I might turn to the Fathers who, regardless of their thoughts on slavery, say that this means all people are morally valuable. I can then attend my local church on Sunday where all walks of life are permitted and hear a homily on the importance of caring for the poorest and most downtrodden in society. I might even turn to “secular” moral philosophy if one can call Aristotelian virtue ethics that. I can now justify my position with these and many more tools in my bag. A supporter of slavery could undergo a similar process. I, the wielder of Orthodox phronema in the year 660 living in Thessalonica, know that slavery is morally and theologically just because the Book of Exodus allows for slavery, though still criticizes certain practices used. I can then attend my local church on Sunday, where slaves are forbidden from entering; I trust my priest and bishop in their actions, so I should not question this. I can then turn to the Fathers, many of whom either do not speak about slavery altogether or are in support of the institution. I might even turn to Aristotle’s “secular” moral justification of natural slavery in Politics. I can now justify my position with these and probably many more tools in my bag. 

If we rely on Constantinou's standards, it is very difficult to answer who has the Orthodox phronema. Both can claim they have phronema, and when asked how they know they have it, they can appeal to very similar authorities. Both could very well have phronema, as they both share a love for Tradition and display personal piety; but they disagree on the morality of slavery, a position that, looking back today, seems to pious Orthodox in 2024 as obviously unjust. This is to say that the fact that the Church consensus has implicitly opposed universal salvation for 1,500 years is not an argument against universal salvation. Just like the Orthodox, who think, despite the broad consensus in the Church—amounting to an almost a priori assumption that slavery is a just institution—that slavery is unjust because of our prior theological and philosophical commitments, I claim the same follows for universalism. Universalism is a justified position based on the theological commitments in Tradition and, though partly irrelevant to the theme of the series, the philosophical rigor behind the position.²¹

1. In Coates, Hunter. "The Hell That Never Was." In Grace Abounds: A Holistic Case for Universal Salvation. Resource Publications, 2024, I discuss this in context to Jesus's use of "Gehenna" in the gospels.
2. I discuss this for a good portion of Chapter 9 in Grace Abounds.
3. Hart, David Bentley. That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation: With a New Preface. Yale University Press, 2021, 124.
4. Many other eschatological positions are possible other than universalism and the belief in eternal conscious torment. I address annihilationism’s Biblical basis in Chapter 8 of Grace Abounds and its philosophical basis in Chapter 15; this responds to those who believe that the wicked soul will cease to exist on its own and those who believe God will destroy the wicked soul. I address “hopeful universalism,” the doctrine popularized by Hans Urs von Balthasar and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, in Chapter 16.
5. Price, Richard, and Michael Gaddis, trans. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2007, 54; Price, Richard, trans. The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553. Liverpool University Press, 2010, 17.
6. See Ramelli, Ilaria. The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis. Brill, 2013, 737.
7. For instance, Constantinou mentions Origen’s condemnation at a “church council.” Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox, 189. On the prior page, she states that while Origen is one of the figures of the early Church important for “historical purposes,” he and the others she mentions are not “Fathers.”
8. See Hombergen, Daniel. The Second Origenist Controversy. Roma: Centro Studi Sant’Anselmo, 2001, 206-31, 309-23.
9. Tzamalikos, Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism, 966-71.
10. Fr Richard Price disagrees with the consensus. Until 2020 he agreed, but after he began to hold that the extant Latin acts were specifically sent for dispatch to Rome. Since Origenism was a bygone worry in Rome, the anti-Origenist anathemas were omitted since they were irrelevant to the Western ecclesial condition of the time. He does not state whether the fifteen anathemas were formally approved at Constantinople II. This is left as an open question. Price, Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 535–6. In private correspondence, after I pointed out some critiques of this position and after he studied more on the reception of the conciliar acts, he provided me an update on his position. I discuss his new hypothesis with his permission (to my knowledge, sent only to me) in Chapter 10 of Grace Abounds and develop several substantive critiques of the hypothesis.
11. Clark, Elizabeth A. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992, 86.
12. Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox, 127.
13. Price, Richard. Acts of the Council of Constantinople, 281.
14. Ludlow, Morwenna. Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner. Oxford University Press, 2000, 80-2.
15. Alfeyev, Hilarion. “The Reception of the Ecumenical Councils in the Early Church.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly (2003) 424.
16. Quoted in Smith, Shawn. “A Critical Analysis of the Eastern Orthodox View of Reception: Divisive Councils and the Filioque,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly (2016) 399.
17. See an extensive study of universalism’s ecclesial reception from early local councils to the Pan-Orthodox Council of 1672 in Chapter 10 of Grace Abounds.
18. Moss, Candida R. God’s Ghostwriters: Enslaved Christians and the Making of the Bible. Little, Brown and Company, 2024. See especially Chapters 4 and 5. 
19. Roper, Gary Lee. “Views of the Early Church on Slavery,” Antebellum Slavery: An Orthodox Christian View. Xlibris, 2009.
20. Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox, 190.
21. Part Three of Grace Abounds is devoted to a philosophical justification and defense of universalism.