It is difficult to research a topic or check one’s work when you don’t have access to the sources in a discussion or can’t follow them (especially a video/audio). Thus by popular demand, I’m going to be just providing my quotes, sources, and notes that I utilized for my sessions in the Universalism Discussion. I should have just provided this the night of the discussion or the day after, but my focus was on the discussion itself [and I was a little lazy, meaning I really didn’t want to format and link everything, such as the timestamps, at the time].
Patrons received an edition with my abridged [foot]notes that I thought would be helpful until I realized some issues, like the fact that Percival and Schaff don’t include the response of Nicea II in Session 6’s Definition 18. Since I quoted the council broadly and didn’t utilize Schaff for Nicaea II, I was unaware. Thus, if people were to utilize Schaff (as it is probably the most easily accessible edition) they would be lost. I’m really not sure what Schaff and Percival were thinking there (seriously though), but I wrongly assumed they had included the whole text which was pointed out to me post debate.
[I appreciate William Tranksley for pointing that out to me, it was a bit confusing to find that they didn’t include it given the context of the documents]
So this is simply my sources and [foot/side] notes I used for my sessions in the universalism discussion so that listeners can know what I used.
The only post-debate updates I made were in the formatting (for y’alls ease – I hope…) and regarding Nicaea II given what I’ve said above (under its corresponding post-discussion note).
So here are the quotes and sources with cross references in the order they appear. I have included, “My Quote in the discussion,” along with a clickable link to the respective timestamp for each point. Hopefully this aids the listener.
Note: My sources range in theological traditions and so while I shouldn’t have to say it, I’ll put it anyway, that I don’t necessarily agree with everything a given source teaches elsewhere.
Session 1 Sources
9:39] Gregory MacDonal (Robin Parry), The Evangelical Universalist [2nd ed], quotes utilized:
“none of Jesus’ contemporaries would have understood Jesus as teaching universalism and few if any would understand Jesus as leaving any room for hope in Gehenna.” (p. 145, digital edition)
“It is quite clear that Jesus’ contemporaries would not have thought that he was a universalist of any variety…I am not trying to show that Jesus taught universalism nor that he taught that those in Gehenna could or would be saved, for he did neither.” [ibid]
10:33] My Quote from the discussion, “It is honest because Jews between testaments never express universalism, but believed in either conditionalism or eternal torment with extremely rare cases of some unlikely individuals having a salvation at the final judgment and this is said by all scholarly literature on the subject and even admitted by most universalists.,” Hell’: A Hard Look at a Hard Question: The Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testament Thought, David Powys; Richard Bauckham, “Early Jewish Visions of Hell,” JTS 41; Bauckham, “Life, Death and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism,” “Afterlife and Resurrection Beliefs in the Second Temple Period,” Jan Sigvartsen, also “Afterlife and Resurrection Beliefs in the Apocrypha and Apocalyptic Literature” & Afterlife and Resurrection Beliefs in the Pseudepigrapha. Cf. Green, Heaven and Hell, Jesus and the Gospels, IVP.
10:43] My Quote from the discussion, “Because of this Chris Date can state that Christians should be predisposed to rejecting universalism as the New Testament comes from this background which has clear anticipations that some people will never be redeemed,” from Chris Date’s discussion with Keith Giles
14:36] My Quote from the discussion, “In the Old Testament’s statements regarding the final fate of the wicked there are an estimated 70 references none of which suppose the wicked will have a chance to repent after the final judgment,” Cf. See Froom or Edward Fudge in the Fire that Consumes who cites Froom for a detailed discussion.
14:45] My Quote from the discussion, “If we move into the period between two Testaments and add my own estimated counts of 22 OT apocryphal references and roughly 90 OT pseudepigrapha references, this makes a combined 112 references between the testaments where there is, again, no hint of universalism,” this count is my own work utilizing aforementioned works as a point of reference.
Ex: Ben Sira which was heavily impactful on Jewish culture and even the early Christians 19:2-3; 21:9; 36:7-10; 16:6; 7:17. Assumption of Moses; Books of Enoch; Second Baurch; etc. The only substantial challenge to this consensus is Ramelli who notes two citations that are questionable: the book of Enoch’s book of Parables (despite Enoch’s 27 explicit statements to the contrary), and 4 Ezra written post-NT. Many Universalists typically concede the point; cf. Parry The Evangelical Universalist, Giles in discussion with Date, etc.
cf. for the long standing myth that Ghenna was a garbage dump rather than a location of eschatological judgment see Gordan Franz’s treatment, “Gehenna: Jerusalem’s Garbage Dump or Place of Eschatological Judgment,” Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels ed. by Beitzel.
15:22] My Quote from the discussion, “We can add an additional 264 references documented by John Wenham,” John Wenham, “The Case for Conditional Immortality”, Christopher Date, Gregory Stump, and Joshua Anderson, eds., Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2014).
Session 2 Sources
Preliminary Framing:
35:27] Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology. Calculations I used in my discussion point were counted first by McClymond, The Devil’s Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism, Vol. 2, p. 1097, which I confirmed by checking McClymond’s assessment and converting the counts into percentages.
Quotes utilized from this work in the discussion:
36:11] “Following the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, as reflected in the New Testament, early Christian writers almost universally assumed that the final state of human existence, after God’s judgment, will be permanent and perfect happiness for the good, and permanent, all consuming misery for the wicked.” (p. 220)
36:27] “Origen’s clear hope for the salvation of all spiritual creatures – the apokatastasis panton – was shared openly by Gregory of Nyssa and Evagrius, as well as by some sixth century anti-Chalcedonian writers, but bitterly contested by others from Origen’s time onwards” (p. 222).
36:41] My Quote from the discussion, “Respected church historian Phillip Schaff points out that universalism did not exist in Christianity until Origen, and that it was condemned as heresy at the 5th ecumenical council,” History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 100-325, p. 611-612
36:50] My Quote from the discussion, “Historian Nick Needham finds agreement with Schaff…”, Nick Needham, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power, vol 1, p. 137, “Despite this great reverence for Origen among Eastern Church leaders, few followed him in his more obviously unorthodox views, e.g., universalism.”
36:50] My Quote from the discussion, “And McDermott,” “Theomelios: An International Journal for Students of Theological and Religious Studies” 38, no. 2, “the notion that all will or might be saved has come into vogue among a significant number of major theologians only since the mid-twentieth century. There was not a hint of universalism in the first two centuries of Christianity. Then in the next three centuries there were some noted proponents of the notion, but they were in the minority.”
37:00] My Quote from the discussion, “The 5th Ecumenical Council brought up by Schaff condemns both Origen and universalism by name – contrary to some statements – in at least three instances,” Canons of 543, 553, Canon 11 of the Council. Translated Texts for Historians, Vol. 51, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 with Related texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, Translated by Richard Price, vol. 2, p. 123, 281, 284.
Note: ‘at least’ as the Fifth Session also mentions that Origen was anathematized (ibid, p. 338) already indicating that Origen was condemned prior to Canon 11 of session eight – lending weight to the thesis regarding the other anti-origenist canons being approved prior to the council rather than after.
The aforementioned canons are also present in Schaff and Wace’s Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. In Percival’s print edition on pg. 456, 460, 464.
Quote utilized,
“If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (Apokatastasis; I.e., Universalism) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.” (canon of 543).
37:50] Summary regarding Pelagius at Diospolis referencing universalism as an Origenist doctrine, from Studia Patristica, Vol. 24, Presented at Oxford, Pelagius’ Narrative Techniques, their Rhetorical Influences and Negative Responses from Opponents Concerning the Acts of the Synod of Diospolis, Nozomu Yamada & Pusey’s What is Faith as to Everlasting Punishment.
38:04] “That Origen was condemned by name in the Eleventh Canon of this council there seems no possible reason to doubt,” & “there is a vast amount of literature subsequent in date to the council which distinctly attributes a detailed and careful examination of the teaching of Origen and a formal condemnation of him and of it to this council.” Excursus on the XV. Anathemas Against Origen, Schaff and Wace, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 458 in Percival’s Edition.
Cf. Leo Davis, the First Seven Ecumenical Councils points out, that after being asked to deal with the Palestinian Orgienists by Sabas, “Justinian took the matter in hand and in 543 issued a theological tract in the form of an edict accompanied by excerpts from Origen’s On First Principles and ten anathemas, probably at the instigation of Pelagius, the papal legate attached to the imperial court. Even Theodore Askidas swallowed his beliefs and subscribed to the condemnation. The condemnation of Origenism will be repeated in the anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople.” (P. 233) And, “Some say that the bishops gathered for the Council approved the anathemas presented to them by the emperor before the actual opening of the official proceedings. Others argue that the anathemas were approved at some point during the conciliar discussions. At any rate, they are continually linked to the work of the Council.” (Ibid. 245)
On Subsequent Literature which corroborates the recognition/acceptance of the three sets of canons as part of Constantinople
38:32] Quoted in part, Cyril of Scythopolis’ Life of Sabas, ca. 558, 5 years following Constantinople, “When the fifth holy ecumenical council had assembled at Constantinople a common and universal anathema was directed against Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia and against the teaching of Evagrius and Didymus on pre-existence and a universal restoration, in the presence and with the approval of the four patriarchs,” translation from Price.
cf. Price on Canons of 543, 553, Canon 11 of the Council. Translated Texts for Historians, Vol. 51, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 with Related texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, 271. cf. See also the General Introduction (I-V) and Appendix I pertaining to Origen and the connection between Origenism and the Three Chapter Controversy and the place of the Anti-Orgienist canons in Constantinople.
38:57] My Quote from the Discussion, “Evagrius of Epiphania the church historian, with his writing 40 years after the council, confirms directly that Origen was condemned with special anathemas.” Cf. Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, IV. 38, competed 593/4, ibid for a translation.
39:05] My Quote from the Discussion, “The Lateran Council of 649 additionally condemns by Origen…and cites the first five ecumenical councils..as the grounds,” The Fifth Session, Chapter 18, Translated Texts for Historians, Vol. 61, The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649, Price, Booth, & Cubitt, p. 381.
39:17] The Sixth Ecumenical Council, Definition of the Faith, states that it gives full assent to the first five ecumenical councils, and after naming the first four states, “and the fifth holy synod assembled in this place against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, and others.” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. vol. XIV of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church)
39:43] Trullo, seen as an extension and continuation of the 6th council [and perfecter of the 5th], in Canon 1 corroborates Origen’s condemnation at Constantinople [Translated Texts for Historians, The Canons of the Qunisext Council, p. 78] and Trullo reaffirms that he was condemned for a number of reasons including an “end of punishment, and a restitution of the devils to their pristine state, and innumerable insane blasphemies.” [Ancient Epitome, 1, Aristenus’ commentary from Epitome of the nomocanon, cited in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. vol. XIV of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 509]
40:13] The 7th Ecumenical Council, Session 6 from Wenham, my brackets for context, “Definition 18 [read by Gregory, quoting the Definition of the rejected council of 754]: If anyone confessed not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to his merits in the righteous balance of the Lord, that neither will there be any end of punishment, nor indeed of the kingdom of Heaven – that is, the full enjoyment of God; for the kingdom of Heaven is not meat and drink, but righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Ghost as the divine apostle teaches – let him be anathema.
[Response of the 7th read by Epiphanius] This is the confession of the patrons of our true faith – the holy apostles. The divinely inspired Fathers: this is the confession of the Catholic Church and not of heretics.” The seventh general council, the second of Nicaea, John Menham, p. 423. Session Seven of ibid, “anathematizes the “fables of Origen…in accordance with the fifth General Council assembled at Constantinople.”
Post-Discussion Note: I’ve discovered that this response by Nicaea confirming Definition 18 (from the rejected 754 council) as valid, is Not present in Schaff’s edition. I had relied on Menham’s older Edition on the Acts. A recent edition [that I received after the discussion] is also from the Translated Texts for Historians series, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (p. 535-536) states,
“Bishop Gregory read out: If anyone does not acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, and the judgement and the requital to each according to desert through the just criteria of God, and that there is no end to punishment nor to the kingdom of heaven, [fn 509] which is the enjoyment of God – for the kingdom of heaven is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit according to the divine apostle – let him be anathema.”
[fn 509]: Canon 9 of the anti-Origenist Canons of 543 and Canon 12 of those of 553.
Deacon Epiphanios read out:
This is the rule of the leaders of our true faith, the holy apostles and inspired fathers. This is the confession of the catholic church and not of heretics.”
41:03] My Quote from the Discussion, “Just as well, when speaking about universalism in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa, Germanus of Constantinople of the 8th century stated that the heretics inserted into Gregory’s writings Universalism and he describes it as follows, “the black and dangerous poison of the error of Origen.” Germanus states the heretics inserted this to “cunningly attribute this foolish heresy to a man famous alike for his virtue and his learning.” (Quoted by Photius, Bibliotheca or Myriobiblon, 223; cf. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm, p. 1)
42:10] My Quote from the Discussion, “The Catholic Church officially rejects universalism but allows for a private hope,” Note: the distinction is placed upon a definitive universalism (we can say with certainty) and a hopeful universalism (we can hope all will be saved), https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/what-is-universalism.
42:16] George Scholarius, Greek Spokesman at Florence, or Gennadius II, the first patriarch of Constantinople under the Turks stated, “The Western writers say, “Where Origen was good, no one is better; where he was bad, no one is worse. Our Asian divines say on the one hand that “Origen is the whetstone of us all,” but on the other hand, that “he is the fount of foul doctrines.” Both are right: he splendidly defended Christianity, wonderfully expounded Scripture, and wrote a noble exhortation to martyrdom. But he was also the father of Arianism, and worst of all, said that hellfire would not last forever.” (Chadwick, Henry, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, p. 95)
43:00] My Quote from the discussion, “Since the Eastern church holds to the seventh ecumenical councils (and Trullo), it formally condemns universalism,” formal Eastern doctrine holds that while not every saying at a council is infallible the canons are. cf. The Orthodox Church, in her unity and catholicity, is the Church of Councils, from the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15.5-29) to the present day. The Church in herself is a Council, established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, in accord with the apostolic words: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15.28). Through the Ecumenical and Local councils, the Church has proclaimed and continues to proclaim the mystery of the Holy Trinity, revealed through the incarnation of the Son and Word of God. The Conciliar work continues uninterrupted in history through the later councils of universal authority. (Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, I.3)”
43:13] Quoted in part, the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, part of Orthodox Liturgy for the first Sunday of Lent: “To them who accept and transmit the vain Greek teachings that there is a pre-existence of souls and teach that all things were not produced and did not come into existence out of non-being, that there is an end to the torment or a restoration again of creation and of human affairs, meaning by such teachings that the Kingdom of Heaven is entirely perishable and fleeting, whereas the Kingdom of Heaven is eternal and indissoluble as Christ our God Himself taught and delivered to us, and as we have ascertained from the entire Old and New Testaments, that the torment is unending and the Kingdom everlasting, to them who by such teachings both destroy themselves and become agents of eternal condemnation to others, Anathema! Anathema! Anathema!” (cf. see various edition of the Triodion. cf. canon for the synodikon of orthodoxy; Note: the Synodikon appears in various forms and said to have been approved in the 800s as it reflects the council of Nicaea II, which includes Session 6’s denial of universalism.
Hopefully this is helpful and CITC will press onto different subjects for some time going forward as I’m pretty tired of the topic.
God bless you all,
Nick