Origen's heresy. In the history of theology, the significance of Origen, according to L.P. Karsavina, absolutely exclusively. “He laid the foundation for its methods, touched on its main problems, gave the correct solutions in many ways, or - even through his mistakes - outlined the paths for future solutions. Without recognizing any boundaries, answering every new question with the most daring hypotheses, he tries to cover, understand and explain everything ". Origen was the first among Christian thinkers to put forward the idea of theological synthesis, and he was the first to implement it, creating it on the basis Holy Scripture and Church Tradition, a philosophical and theological system that contains the entire content of the Christian faith. Having laid the foundation of scientific theology, he took steps towards the “churchization” of classical science. “An extremely deep and versatile mind, a man who, by his personal convictions, was undoubtedly and sincerely church-going, Origen sometimes did not know how to restrain the flight of his thoughts, to humble and keep it within the bounds<...>the “rules of faith” clearly designated by the Church. The origins of the Origenian heresy were rooted in this unbridled “flight of thought.”
The body, according to the Origenists, is the source of defilement. It is the author of our sin and fallen human condition. “The body is the cause of slander and all kinds of sins; because the soul by itself - alone without the body - cannot sin at all, and therefore, so that after leaving here, it can be free from sin and disobedience in heaven, where it will have a stay together with the Angels, she must remain free from the body, because the body serves for her as the cause of defilement by sin and contributes to this." Of course, the diminishment of the body was fundamentally at odds with the teaching of the Church: “The body is not the prison of the soul, but a part of man, without which man would be incomplete. The death of the body is a consequence of sin, but through death the body itself is cleansed. The fall did not occur in a state of pure spirituality, and together with the body, therefore sin lives in the body." This is the Orthodox position of St. Methodius of Patara, contrasted with the views of Origen. The human body is not bonds and shackles, as the Alexandrian teacher believed. “A person in the truest sense regarding nature is not called a soul without a body and not a body without a soul, but that which is formed into one beautiful image from the union of soul and body,” says Saint Methodius. “According to the Creator’s plan, the body was created immortal - and death appeared as a result of sin,” writes Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky), revealing the teaching of Saint Methodius in his struggle with Origen. “The work of God must be restored in its form. Death is allowed so that, on the one hand, by destroying the bodily composition, completely erase sin in the body, which otherwise lives to the grave in the best Christian; on the other hand, by transforming the corrupted composition, heal the ulcers of sin in it. Thus, the original body should not be destroyed; this would be contrary to the idea of God; man; it will only be transformed. Exactly the same change will happen to the whole world: it will not be destroyed at the end of the age, but will be transformed." Origen also taught that the universe is coeternal with God. He said that the Creator cannot exist without creation, the creator without creation, the Almighty without content. And according to Origen’s logic, it turned out that creations were with God from the beginning and that “there was no time when they were not.” To which Saint Methodius, in his reasoning defending the Orthodox teaching about God as the one Creator and Creator of all things, said: “Is not God other than the world, and the world other than God? Of course so. Therefore, one should not call God perfect and the Creator and Almighty through the world? No. So that He remains perfect in Himself and through Himself, and not through the world and, moreover, changeable? This is how it should be." As we see, the consequences of the teaching for the Church, if they prevailed over the Truth, would be destructive.
The heresy of Arianism. The founder of the heresy, Arius, was from Libya. Following the Gnostics, he denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ. According to Arius, Christ is not God, but the first and most perfect of the creatures created by God. He is higher than all the angels and archangels, but lower than the Father. Emphasizing the creatureliness of Christ, Arius asserted His birth; therefore, in his opinion, Christ is not God. Arius also denied the existence of the human soul in Christ. Arius proceeded from the concept of God as a perfect unity, as a self-closed monad. And this monad is God the Father. Everything else that really exists is alien to God in essence, has a different essence. The completeness of God's existence excludes any possibility of communicating or imparting the Divine essence to anyone else. The Son of God, in his opinion, as a Hypostasis, as truly Existent, is unconditionally and completely alien and not like the Father. He receives His existence from the Father and according to the will of the Father, like other creatures, and comes into existence as a mediator in creation, for the sake of creating the world. There is a certain “gap”, a certain “gap” between the Father and the Son. The Son is not co-eternal with the Father. Otherwise - two “Beginless”, two “Beginnings”. The truth of monotheism would be rejected. There was a time when the Son was not. He is "of those who do not exist." He is a "creature". Has a changeable nature. Divine glory is communicated to Him - “by grace,” and not by nature. In essence, this is a denial of the Trinity of God. . The doctrine of the Word, as the first creature, as a kind of mediator between God and the world, about the Word, completely alien to the Father, carried the greatest danger, since it radically destroyed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. “By the success with which Arianism quickly spread across the face of the then universe,” wrote Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern), “and with what difficulty it had to be overcome on the part of the Orthodox, it is clear that in its caliber this false teaching was significantly different from all before him of former dogmatic errors."
The struggle that unfolded in the Church was “not about theological subtleties, but about the vital interests of Christian humanity: the question was what place in the economy of faith should be given to Christ.” The question fell into several particular ones: if the Word of God, the Logos, really exists, then in what relation does He stand to God, to the one God? Is the Word of God an integral part of the Divine essence, or is He only a creation similar to people - infinitely higher, but a creation created by the free will of God? If He is of exactly the same essence as God, then is there any room for difference and is the dignity of God and the Almighty not violated if such a being stands next to Him? If the Word is a creature and should be worshiped, would this not be the deification of the creature? Doesn't the old pagan polytheism penetrate into the Church, if the answer is positive? Giving its unambiguous answers to the questions posed by time, Arianism in the 4th century became the first major theological heresy on a universal scale. Internal disputes rocked the Church. Arianism threatened the purity of faith and posed a serious danger to the entire fragile Christian world. Questions of the inner life of the Deity were not alien to the writers of early centuries. “But the thought of the writers of that era was not yet sufficiently prepared to grasp all the shades and comprehensively understand all the issues included in it. Not mature in itself, this thought has not yet given rise to anything similar in its meaning and power to the false teaching that has gone down in history with the name Arius, as well as its Orthodox refutation, which is associated with the names of St. Athanasius and the great Cappadocians."
The struggle between Antioch and Alexandria. The fight against heresy took place against the background of the struggle between two theological schools that dominated the then Church - Alexandria and Antioch. The Antiochian school, according to V. Lossky, is “a school of literalism in exegesis, which paid main attention to the historical aspect of Holy Scripture. Any symbolic interpretation, any gnosis of a sacred event seemed suspicious to it, and therefore it often lost sight of the presence of eternity in history.” The Antiochians emphasized the humanity of Christ. There was a real danger of seeing Jesus as just an "individual" in Jewish history. In the Antiochian school, history became so self-contained that at times it even passed by the grandiose vision of God becoming man. The Antiochians “could not express with sufficient clarity the mystery of the union of two natures in Christ.” The Antiochians lacked terminological means to express this. The Antioch school was at one time led by presbyter Malchio, who denounced the false teaching of Paul of Samosata. Then the school was headed by a supporter of Paul, Lucian of Samosata. His students were: Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Foegnis of Nicaea. "The Lucianists wanted to be representatives of a positive and accurate theology, based on the literal sense of Scripture. They had a negative attitude towards the allegorical method of the Alexandrians and the mystical-philosophical speculation associated with it. Brought up on Aristotle, the true father of heretics, carried away by his categories and syllogisms, they loved and They knew how to argue. Although they wanted to remain strictly scientific in theology, they believed in the power of reason and did not want to know anything incomprehensible." (Ed. by the author).
The Alexandrian school, on the contrary, based on Christian gnosis, "in its extreme allegorical exegesis, often deprived the biblical event of its concrete simplicity, tending to ignore the historical, human aspect of the incarnation." The Alexandrian school found support in “the theology of Origen with his free allegorical interpretation.” The school was successively headed by famous theologians, including Panten, Clement of Alexandria and the already mentioned Origen. The Alexandrian school was characterized by a special direction and quality of teaching, gradually transforming from a catechetical school into an academic one. “Holy Scripture, as understood by representatives of the allegorical school of interpretation,” in the words of Archpriest John Meyendorff, “was something like a cryptogram for the uninitiated, it had an esoteric meaning, accessible only to a select elite of educated intellectuals, but not to mere unenlightened mortals.” Both of these schools produced both great theologians and great heretics, "when each of them succumbed to their characteristic temptation." The culmination of the confrontation between the schools was the Christological dispute between the Alexandrian Cyril and the Antiochian Nestorius. Although, according to A.V. Kartashev, the shortcomings of the Alexandrian school were no less large and slippery, but in the dispute, first, “Alexandria triumphed over Antioch in the order of antithesis and with a bias towards the polar extreme. And only then, taking into account Antiochian theology, a synthetic balance was achieved.” It is known that the Alexandrian school of theology gravitated towards the philosophy of Plato, and the Antiochian school - towards the philosophy of Aristotle. Arius, offended by his non-election to the Alexandrian see, was a student of Lucian of Antioch. St. Alexander wrote: “This does not mean that Arius simply borrowed his teaching from Lucian. There is no reason to deny the well-known independence of Arius...”. George Florovsky emphasizes that the problems of Arian theology are understandable only from the premises of Origen. The Arian movement was possible only on the basis of Origenism. “And therefore the struggle against Arianism was in reality the overcoming of Origenism.” And despite the fact that St. Athanasius of Alexandria treated Origen with great respect. Thus, “the overcoming of Arianism historically turned out to be at once the overcoming of Origenism - in Trinitarian theology.” "Arianism, like Origenism, can be called a heresy about time." Here was the main error of Arian thought. Lucian, recognizing the pre-eternal existence of the Son of God, declared Him to be the highest creation of God, created from nothing. The future leaders of Arianism were grouped in the school of Lucian: Eusebius of Nicomedia, Marius of Chalcedon, Theognius of Nicea, Arius.
Characterizing the danger of the Arian heresy for the fate of Orthodoxy, E. Lovyagin wrote at the end of the 19th century: “The Christian Church, repeatedly subjected to persecution and all kinds of disasters... has not experienced such a great danger from anything or anyone as from heretics. Heretics, encroaching on the external well-being of believers, they sought primarily to disturb their inner world, to steal from them the true treasure - the purity of faith and piety, perverted the holy truths of the revealed teachings and thus directly encroached on that without which the Church itself would not be the true Church of Christ.. Of all the heresies that have arisen in the Church from the times of the apostles to the present day, the most dangerous, disastrous and accompanied by the most important consequences is the Arian heresy... it can, in all fairness, be called the most cunning invention of the spirit of malice.” In the apt expression of Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin): “The Arians could be called a “philosophical intelligentsia,” trying to reconcile Platonism with Christianity. The simplicity of the fathers was a direct perception of Christianity and a reflection of its light in their soul. They theologized not so much in word as in spirit. If If there had not been Arius, then Arianism would not have existed; if there had not been Athanasius and the Cappadocians, then Orthodoxy would have remained the same."
3.6 Iconoclasm as “the sum of heresies and errors”
The origins of the iconoclastic heresy are not only in Judaism and Islam. Claims against the Church of Christ that it allegedly destroys or restricts art have been heard since the very beginning of Christianity. Such statements were made by Celsus, Lucian, Julian, Livanius and others. Absolutely groundless against the Church, these accusations are fully applicable to heretics and pseudo-Christian sects of the first centuries. The sects of the Nazarenes, Ebionites, and Montanists that we mentioned above really considered the art of painting and sculpture to be an invention of the evil one with the aim of blinding and captivating people. Iconoclasm was professed by sects infected with docetism, that is, the doctrine according to which the incarnation of Jesus Christ was not real, but illusory. Such were the Paulicians and some Monophysite sects. At the VII Ecumenical Council of St. Patriarch Tarasius said that the iconoclasts were inspired by the Jews, Saracens, Samaritans and two Monophysite sects: the Phantasiasts and Theopaschites. Some iconoclastic ideas appear in the texts of such famous church writers of the early centuries as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Minucius Felix, Arnovius and Lactantius.
The inexpressibility and unimaginability of the Divine was the main postulate of the iconoclasts. Considering that the only icon of Christ can only be the Eucharist, they said: “Of all that is under heaven, no other form or image has been named that could depict His incarnation.” The anathemas of the Iconoclastic Council of 754 speak of the “indescribable essence and hypostasis of the Word” even after His incarnation. “The Word, even in its incarnation, is indescribable.” According to iconoclasts, only the flesh of Christ is depicted on icons, and not “the hypostatic union of two natures.” The logic of the iconoclasts is this: The image of God is indescribable. The icons depict only humanity, not the Divine. There is a separation of hypostases. But you can’t worship a person. Since the icon contains only the image of a person. Because we cannot depict the image of God. As mentioned above, according to iconoclasts, an icon can only be an object identical to what is depicted. If there is no identity between the image and the object depicting this image, there cannot be an image as such. In relation to the dogma of the Incarnation, fine art is blasphemy, because the Divinity is indescribable, this, firstly. And, secondly, trying to depict the divine and human natures of Christ on the icon, the icon painter falls into the heresy of Monophysitism, merging these natures into one. An icon cannot convey the true relationship of natures. Thus, according to the iconoclasts and modern Protestants, the Eucharist is the only possible image of the Savior. In this statement, for iconoclasts, there are only two relationships between objects: their identity or their difference. For the Orthodox, despite the difference in nature or essence, there is a certain connection between them. Two objects can thus be simultaneously identical and different from each other. The Orthodox objected to them, because the icons depict “neither the Divinity nor humanity, but a single divine-human personality.” God revealed himself to us in a visible way in the Incarnation of God the Son. “In the face of Jesus Christ, God appeared in the flesh...”. God is visible, therefore we can describe. Otherwise, the reality of the Incarnation itself is called into question. Christ is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Christ in his earthly Incarnation was tangible and visible. What is visible is depictable. Therefore, the visible image of God can be realistically depicted. In the final oros of the VII Ecumenical Council of 787 it is said that “the honor given to the image goes back to the prototype, and the one who worships the icon worships the hypostasis of the person depicted on it.”
In science, there are many different opinions on the reasons that prompted the Byzantine iconoclast emperors to abolish icon veneration in the empire, plunging the Eastern Church into the heresy of iconoclasm for many years. G. Ostrogorsky writes: “For a modern observer, the problems of iconoclasm turned out to be so impenetrable, and the very fact that for a whole century there was a struggle not to the death, but to the death over issues of religious cult, turned out to be so incomprehensible that, contrary to all the evidence of the sources iconoclasm was interpreted as a social reformist movement." This is from the position of the West, thoroughly saturated with rationalism and sociologism. From the point of view of the East, the issues raised during the iconoclastic period are purely religious in nature. Iconoclasm had deep roots long before state power openly adopted its slogans on their shields. Iconoclasm continued to exist even after the authorities took a diametrically opposite position towards iconoclasm. The origins of this heresy are in no way connected with a specific historical period and position of power. “Iconoclasm,” writes L.A. Uspensky, “with the same doctrinal premises was repeated several times in history different countries. It continues to exist in our time, and, moreover, without the slightest connection with any political power." And this once again confirms our point of view that the source of all heresies, as well as various sects and schisms, is located in the plane of human psychology. External circumstances are not determining, but are provoking, catalyzing circumstances, revealing any flawed view of a person on the Truth, that is, deviation from it.
Origins and roots of heresy. The world tried hard then, and is still trying to this day, to bring into the Church its own, worldly, image, the image of a fallen, sinful, corrupt and decaying world, trying to destroy the Church from the inside. And church iconography was a convenient means of influencing the minds of Christians who were not strong in the truth. The depiction of a shrine and the attitude towards it were often worldly, without the application of spiritual efforts, because “it is much easier to depict God in the image and likeness of fallen man than to do the opposite: to convey in the image the image and likeness of God in man.” In the Byzantine Empire in the times we are considering, the influence of ancient art on the Christian image was so strong that some historians directly spoke about the revival of antiquity. The attitude of believers, but not spiritually developed people, towards icons, gave strong arguments to iconoclasts in the fight against holy images. Thus, Christians, diligently decorating churches, believed that this was enough to save the soul. Byzantine aristocrats wore magnificent robes decorated with images of saints. Also in Alexandria, high-ranking persons paraded through the streets in outfits decorated with sacred images. Icons were taken as godfathers and mothers during baptism and as guarantors during tonsure as monks. The paint was scraped off the icons and mixed with the Holy Gifts. Divine services were performed on icons, instead of a throne. They revered not so much the face depicted on the icon as the object itself. In a word, icon veneration often became a profanation, gradually degenerating into magic and paganism. Not only internal unrest contributed to iconoclasm, but also the external circumstances of Byzantium, in particular, Islam, which was gaining strength around the borders of the empire. The apogee of iconoclasm was essentially the Council of 754, which began in Hierea and ended in the Blachernae Church of Constantinople, chaired by Bishop Theodosius of Ephesus. This Council was conceived as ecumenical. But the Orthodox of Byzantium did not allow themselves to be deceived and did not abandon the veneration of icons.
The destruction of the miraculous image of the Savior above the entrance to the imperial palace in Constantinople was the first and extremely characteristic action of the iconoclasts, which naturally provoked popular unrest. The most severe struggle against Orthodoxy continued in Byzantium for about 100 years. The iconoclastic emperor Leo the Isaurian was a “despotic and rude” man. He forced Jews and Montanists to be baptized, who often preferred suicide to forced baptism. “I am king and high priest,” wrote Leo the Isaurian to Pope Gregory II. In essence, the principle of Caesaropapism, the principle of the domination of the State over the Church, a principle deeply alien to Orthodoxy, was imposed on the Eastern Church, the Byzantine Empire. And here one heresy seemed to naturally entail another. Emperor Constantine Copronymus, an ardent supporter of iconoclasm, went so far as to prohibit the veneration of the Mother of God and all saints by decree. He abolished the very name “Mother of God” and prohibited the use of the words “saint” and “holy”. He forbade frequent visits to temples and celibacy.
As we see from the above examples, the iconoclastic heresy is not only an exclusively struggle with the image. It is deeply rooted both in man and in human history. Under different types Iconoclasm existed and exists, as it does today in Protestant sects, for a long time and constantly. One can recall the heresy of the Albigenses in medieval France, the heresy of the Judaizers in Russia in the 15th century. From a doctrinal point of view, iconoclasm “is a very complex phenomenon and, as a heresy, still insufficiently studied.” Having begun the fight against the images of Jesus Christ, the Mother of God and the saints with primitive reproaches of idolatry against stones, boards, walls, and so on, the iconoclasts over time greatly honed their arguments in line with two main directions. Supporters of the first demanded the complete destruction of sacred images, starting with the icon of the Lord Jesus Christ. They denied the veneration of relics, the veneration of the Mother of God and saints. All these postulates of denial are fully present in modern Protestant sects, for example, the Seventh-day Adventist sect. Supporters of the second, more tolerant direction, allowed images in the Church, but advocated a “sober” attitude of believers towards icons. It would seem that one cannot but agree with them. But there were many nuances: some of these iconoclasts believed that it was impossible to venerate icons at all, others recognized only the icon of the Savior Jesus Christ, denying the icons of the Mother of God and saints, while others argued that the Savior should be depicted only before His resurrection. A detailed analysis of the opinions of the iconoclasts and the response to their heretical judgments of the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council is not included in the plan of this work. Let us only note the extremely important conclusion of the fathers of the mentioned Council that “iconoclasm, both in its views and in its activities, at once repeats the evil examples, errors and heresies of all previous times: iconoclasm is the sum of many heresies and errors.” Let us especially note that the basis of iconoclastic thinking and everything connected with it was not the Old Testament prohibition of the image, as is commonly believed - this prohibition was an argument only at the beginning of the dispute. Iconoclasm was born in the East and it is often characterized as marked by an Eastern magical understanding of the image. But, according to the works of G. Florovsky, this heresy has deeper roots. The heresy of iconoclasm was an attempt to return to pre-Christian Hellenism. The main inspiration of iconoclastic thinking was Hellenistic. This was a phase of a centuries-long process in which the uncompromising position of Origenism and Platonism emerged. Having already been condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Origenism by that time was quite a lively theological movement and its allegorical-symbolic method “could not have been more suitable for the reasoning of iconoclastic theology.” Things were heading towards a return to the ancient dichotomy - the division between spirit and matter, substance. In such a system, the image could be a hindrance in spiritual life - since it is made of gross matter and depicts the body, that is, the substance. Thus, Origen's Christology was the background and main premise of the reasoning of Eusebius of Caesarea, a zealous admirer of Origen, who believed that the ineffable glory of the changed Christ can only be contemplated spiritually. And to depict the indescribable is paganism. “The Hellenistic world had great difficulty in perceiving and assimilating the entirety of the Christian Revelation. This difficulty lies at the basis of all heresies and has never been and cannot be completely overcome.” The struggle for the integrity of the Christian Revelation was waged even before Origen's intellectualism. The Hellenistic heritage of Christology predates Origen and Arius. Iconoclasm ends a series of major Christological heresies in the first period of the history of the Universal Church. Each of these heresies damaged to some extent the economy of God. Iconoclasm was no longer about individual aspects, but about the entire economy of our salvation as a whole. “And just as this very complex heresy was an attack on the Orthodox doctrine as a whole, so the restoration of icon veneration represents not only a victory over a separate heresy, but a victory of Orthodoxy as such. The Church has triumphed over many heterogeneous heresies and will still triumph; but only one of its victories, namely the victory over iconoclasm, was solemnly proclaimed as the Triumph of Orthodoxy as such."
1. History of the term. Condemnation of the heresy of apokatastasis by the Church The word apokatastasis in the meaning of restoration was used by St. fathers in the sense of returning to a state of grace. Yes, St. Justin the Philosopher, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that Christ restores those who believe in Him.
St. Justin the Philosopher: “Christ came to restore free and slave, giving equal dignity to all who keep His commandments.”
St. Irenaeus of Lyons: “death, having overcome a person, removed life from him and made him dead - all the more, Life, taking possession of a person, expels death and restores man alive to God”).
St. Theophilus of Antioch taught about the restoration of animals to the “original image of meekness” after the spiritual restoration of man.
Individual provisions of apokatastasis as a doctrine of general restoration (“restoration of everything”) were first formulated by Clement of Alexandria. Thus, he assumed the finiteness of hellish torment, the possibility of repentance of the devil and all sinners, and assumed that hellish torment could be a cleansing fire for fallen angels and people. His student Origen developed in more detail ideas about universal apocatastasis (both fallen angels and all sinners, virtually regardless of their will), connecting it with assumptions about the pre-existence of souls, and, as a result, about the temporary nature of the torment of sinners in hell.
It was not only Origen who expressed his opinion about the finiteness of hellish torment. In addition to him, the same thoughts were expressed by Didymus the Blind, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius of Pontus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus.
There has always been a pronounced and uncompromising opposition to this opinion in the Church. Apokatastasis was repeatedly condemned by the Church as a false and disastrous teaching, depriving those who adhere to it of salvation.
In Holy Scripture the eternity of future punishment for sinners is spoken of repeatedly and quite definitely: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awaken, some to eternal life, others to everlasting reproach and shame” (Dan. 12:2); “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46); “Whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but he is subject to eternal condemnation” (Mark 3:29); “Those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ... will be subject to punishment, everlasting destruction” (2 Thess. 1:8,9).
Based on the word of God, the Church recognizes the torment of Gehenna as eternal and endless. Whole line conciliar decrees: the Roman, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Cyprus Councils of 400, the Council of Constantinople of 543, the V Ecumenical Council, the Lateran Council of 649, the Council of Constantinople 1084 years, and in addition, the statements of many holy fathers clearly state that the coming punishment of sinners is a reality that will never end, and that the opposite opinion is erroneous.
Towards the end of the 3rd century, detailed criticism of Origen’s theological ideas was made by: Saint Peter, Saint Methodius, Saint Eustathius, and another 100 years later, around the year 400, whole four Local Councils who condemned the teachings of Origen: Alexandrian, chaired by Patriarch Theophilus; Roman, presided over by Pope Anastasius I; Cyprus, presided over by Saint Epiphanius, and Jerusalem. Moreover, according to Sulpicius Severus, a witness to one of them, it was precisely the idea of apocatastasis that caused the greatest indignation, which broke out then “when the bishops read many passages from his (that is, Origen’s) books... and reproduced one passage in which it was stated that the Lord Jesus... with His torment even atoned for the sins of the devil.”
Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria reports in his district message about the decision of the Council of Alexandria in 400: “The books of Origen were read before the Council of Bishops and unanimously condemned.” Following his example, Pope Anastasius convened a Council in Rome, about the decision of which he writes in a letter to Simplician: “We reported that everything written in past times by Origen that contradicts our faith has been rejected and condemned by us.” At the same time, the Jerusalem Council was convened, and the Palestinian bishops wrote to Patriarch Theophilus: “Origenism is not among us. The teachings you described are ones we have never heard here. We anathematize those who adhere to such teachings."
Finally, in the same year, the Council of Cyprus took place, chaired by St. Epiphanius, who also condemned Origenism. Sozomen mentions that Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus “in the assembly of Cypriot bishops forbade the reading of Origen’s books; then he wrote a decree about this to other bishops and to Constantinople, urging them to convene Councils and approve the same thing.” Saint Epiphanius, as is clear from his writings, considered the idea of the possibility of restoring the devil to be one of Origen’s main errors, and it is obvious that the idea of \u200b\u200bthe temporary torment of hell was condemned at the Cyprus Council.
In the East, Origen was also condemned Saint Alexander of Alexandria and Saint Athanasius the Great, in the West - Blessed Jerome and Blessed Augustine.
In Orthodox asceticism, opposition to the spread of Origen’s ideas was no less widespread: starting with Venerable Pachomius the Great(who forbade his students to read the works of Origen), including such famous ascetic critics of Origenism as Saints Barsanuphius the Great and John, Simeon the Fool-for-Christ, Nile of Sinai, Vincent of Lirinsky, and ending Venerable Savva the Sanctified, with whose direct participation these disputes were concluded by decree V Ecumenical Council, which, without introducing anything new, confirmed similar decisions of previous Local Councils.
« Whoever says or thinks that the punishment of demons and wicked people is temporary and that after some time it will have an end, or that there will be a restoration of demons and wicked people afterward, let him be anathema“- this is the 9th anathematism against the Origenists, proposed by Saint Justinian the Great and approved Fifth Ecumenical Council(=12 anathematism).
Subsequently, the general condemnation of the non-Orthodox opinions of Origen was confirmed by the fathers Fifth-Sixth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. Moreover, the same condemnation was repeated on Lateran Council 649, convened by the holy Pope Martin I, and, regardless of the name of Origen, Council of Constantinople 1084.
VI Ecumenical Council(680), in its dogmatic definition (orose), testified its agreement with the Catholic faith with the following words: “Our holy and ecumenical council, having rejected the error of wickedness from former times until now, and unswervingly following the straight path of the holy and glorious fathers, is pious in everything joined the voice of five glorious and ecumenical councils, namely ... the Fifth Holy Council, assembled here (in Constantinople) against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus and Evagrius ... - resuming without any innovation the definitions of piety and rejected the self-invented dogmas of impiety."
Passed shortly after this (in 692) Trullo Cathedral, which went down in history under the name Fifth-Sixth Council, decreed: “We recognize and teach our successors to recognize, as if spoken from the Spirit, the pious sayings of the 160 God-bearing fathers, who gathered in this reigning city under the pious memory of Justinian, our former emperor, who collectively anathematized and renounced Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, Origen, Didymus and Evagrius, who reproduced pagan fables and again repeated to us in delirium of mind and in sleepy visions the transitions and transformations of certain bodies and souls... We reject and anathematize everyone whom they rejected and anathematized as enemies of the truth, who vainly rose up against God and plotted untruths against the Almighty If anyone does not contain and accept the above-mentioned dogmas of piety, and does not think and preach so, but tries to go against them, let him be anathema, according to the previously stated definition of the saints and blessed fathers mentioned above, and let him be expelled. and expelled from the list of Christians as a stranger."
Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea in 787, also condemned the heresy of Origen in its oros: “We anathematize the nonsense of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, as did the Fifth (Ecumenical) Council, which was in Constantinople.”
« The rite of anathematization on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy“proclaims: “Those who reject the immortality of the soul, the end of the century, future judgment and eternal reward for virtues in heaven, and condemnation for sins, anathema.”
Along with the condemnation of the doctrine of universal apokatastasis, the Church of Christ approved as a dogma, that is, the indisputable truth of the Christian faith, the doctrine that, “ Unbelievers and lawless people will be given up to eternal death, or, in other words, to eternal fire, eternal torment, along with the devils» ( Long Christian Catechism Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church of St. Philareta. About the twelfth member of the Creed).
Finally, the Church responded to attempts to revive the ideas of apokatastasis in the twentieth century in exactly the same way as in previous centuries. Bishops' Council 1935, chaired by the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan (later Patriarch) Sergius (Stragorodsky) and dedicated to the teachings of Archpriest. S. Bulgakov, repeated:
“We must not forget that the devil can no longer turn, and likewise all those who have completely surrendered to him. This means that next to the “city of God” and “outside” it (Rev. 22:15) there will forever remain an area of rejection, the “second death” (Rev. 21, 8). Revelation does not know the apocatastasis of all creation, but only the deification of those who will be with Christ. “God will be everything” only in the “sons of the Kingdom,” everything in everyone whose will is consciously identified with the will of God.”
This decree, in addition to the future Patriarch Sergius, was signed by 10 bishops, which at that time amounted to almost the entirety of the free episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church. Most of these bishops subsequently received the crown of martyrdom.
2. The doctrine of universal salvation is destructive for the soul
Apokatastasis, by the very assertion that salvation does not depend on a person’s life, on his moral choice, and that in the end everyone will be saved, essentially denies the need for the Gospel, rebirth in Christ, fulfillment of the commandments, spiritual improvement, the Church of Christ itself and Christianity in general.On the contrary, the holy fathers teach that in the next century there will be no place for cultivating salvation, it will be impossible to begin repentance, and reward awaits us for how we lived this temporary life, when everyone will receive according to their deeds, good or evil, and each one's place will be determined by the state of his soul at the moment of judgment. The entire life of the Church, dogmatics, Christian asceticism and sacraments are built on this teaching of the Word of God and on this confidence of the holy fathers.
Venerable Barsanuphius the Great answered the question of his spiritual son about whether future torment should have an end:
“Truly, brother, I have given up crying for myself and am crying for you: what have you fallen into? I stopped crying about my sins and mourn you as if I were my son. The heavens are horrified, what people are curious about! The earth is shaking, how they want to explore the incomprehensible! These are pagan dogmas. This is the idle talk of people who think of themselves that they mean something. These are the words of idle people. These are the products of delusion, for it is said: “Calling themselves wise, they have become fools” (Rom. 1:22). And if you want to understand, listen: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). What are their fruits? Arrogance, humiliation, relaxation, laziness, stumbling, alienation from the law, or, better said, from God the Lawmaker. They are the home of demons and their prince, the devil. These opinions do not lead those who believe them to light, but into darkness. They do not encourage the fear of God, but rather the prosperity of the devil. They do not extract from the mud, but plunge into it. These are the tares that the enemy sowed in the field of the Householder. This is a thorn that grew on land cursed by the Lord God. They are a complete lie, complete darkness, complete delusion, a decisive alienation from God. Run away from them, brother, so that their teaching does not take hold in your heart. They dry up tears, blind the heart and completely destroy people who listen to them. Do not dwell on them or meditate on them: they are full of bitterness and bear the fruits of death. Regarding knowledge of the future, do not be mistaken: what you sow here, you will reap there (see Gal. 6, 7). After leaving here, no one can succeed... Brother, here is work - there is reward, here is feat - there are crowns. Brother, if you want to be saved, do not delve into this (teaching), for I testify to you before God that you have fallen into the den of the devil and into extreme destruction. So, step away from this and follow the holy fathers.”
Rev. Barsanuphius the Great, being asked by the disciples about similar statements of St. Gregory of Nyssa, answered them by the revelation of God that this was not the opinion of St. Gregory himself, and his teacher, which he accepted with confidence, without testing it with prayer to God:
"So listen to what God revealed to me three days before you wrote me your question. May all the Fathers who have pleased God, the saints and the righteous, and the faithful servants of God pray for me! Do not think that people, even saints, can completely comprehend all the depths of God; for the Apostle says: “we know in part and prophesy in part” (1 Cor. 13:9), and also: “to one is given by the Spirit” this and that, but not all gifts to one person. “One and the same Spirit works all things” (1 Cor. 12:8-11). Knowing that God’s actions are incomprehensible, the Apostle cried out: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His destinies and unsearchable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who was His adviser? (Rom. 11, 33-34) and so on. The saints, having become teachers, either by themselves, or forced to do so by other people, were very successful, surpassed their teachers and, having received approval from above, set forth a new teaching, but at the same time they preserved what they received from their former teachers, that is, the teaching wrong. Having subsequently succeeded and become spiritual teachers, they did not pray to God that He would reveal to them regarding their first teachers: whether what they taught them was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but, considering them wise and reasonable, they did not examine their words; and thus the opinions of their teachers were mixed with their own teaching, and these saints sometimes spoke what they learned from their teachers, sometimes what they sensibly comprehended with their own minds; subsequently both those and other words were attributed to them. Receiving from others, having succeeded and become better, the saints, by the Holy Spirit, spoke what was entrusted to them with confirmation from Him; They also said what was taught to them by their former teachers, without examining their words, whereas they should have examined them, and through prayer to God and asking those enlightened by the Spirit to make sure whether they were fair. Thus the teachings were mixed up, and everything that these holy men said was attributed to their name."
AND Saint John Chrysostom writes: “Only real life is a time for exploits, and after death there is judgment and punishment. “In hell,” it is said, “who will confess You?” (see: Ps. 6, 6).”
Explaining the words of the apostle, “everyone’s work will be revealed; for the day will show it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will try everyone’s work, what kind it is... whose work is burned, he will suffer loss; however, he himself will be saved, but as if from fire"(1 Cor. 3:13, 15), St. John Chrysostom speaks:
“These words mean the following: he himself will not perish as things are, he will not turn into nothing, but will remain in the fire. This is what the apostle calls salvation; therefore he did not just say: he will be saved, but added: “as if from fire.” So we usually say: they are preserved in fire - about such things that do not burn up and do not suddenly turn into ashes ... by saying: he will be saved, he expresses nothing more than a continuation of the punishment, and as if he is saying: he himself will suffer incessantly. ".
Saint Mark of Ephesus:
“Sinners who bring evil with them, engulfing them as convenient material for this fire, it will immediately ignite, and their “deed,” that is, their evil disposition or action (energy), will burn and completely destroy them, and deprive them of what they brought with them, that is, he will deprive them of the evil load, but he himself will “save” them, that is, he will preserve and preserve them forever, so that they are not destroyed along with their evil.
The divine Father Chrysostom also considers this interpretation of this saying of the Apostle to be made (who is called by us the “Mouth of Paul,” as he is called the “Mouth of Christ,” explaining Epistle 44); wherein Paul speaks through Chrysostom, as was revealed through the vision of Proclus, the disciple and successor to his throne. He dedicated a special treatise to this one saying, so that the Origenians would not cite these apostolic words to confirm the way of their thinking (which seems to suit them better than you), and would not harm the Church by introducing the end of hellish torment and the final restoration (τελείαν άποκατάοτασιν) sinners. For the expression that a sinner is “saved as by fire” means that he will remain tormented in fire and will not be destroyed along with his evil deeds and evil spiritual dispensation. Basil the Great also speaks about this in “Morals”, interpreting the saying of the psalm: “The voice of the Lord, cutting apart the flame of fire,” saying this: “The fire, prepared for torment for the devil and his angels, is cut by the voice of the Lord, so that for this there are two forces in it : one is scorching, and the other is enlightening; the tormenting and punitive power of that fire is reserved for those worthy of torment; and the enlightening and illuminating one is intended for the illumination of those who rejoice. So, for this purpose is the voice of the Lord, cutting and dividing the flame of fire, so that the dark part would be the fire of torment, and the unburning part would remain the light of pleasure” 45). So, as you can see, this cutting and division of that fire will happen when bright and shining deeds will appear even brighter to everyone equally passing through it, and those who brought them will become heirs of the light and will receive this eternal reward, and those who brought bad and burning deeds will be punished by deprivation of them , eternally remaining in fire, they inherit salvation, which is worse than death, for this, in fact, is what the expression “to be saved” means, so that they do not happen to be destroyed by the destructive power of fire and themselves are also completely destroyed.”
Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria:
“However, he himself will be saved, but as if from fire. - He himself will not perish like his deeds, he will not pass into insignificance, but he will be saved, that is, preserved whole, so that he can burn in the fire. And in our country, about that tree that does not easily burn and turns to ashes, they usually say that it remains intact in the fire, so that it takes quite a long time to burn it. So, the sinner suffers a loss from the fact that he worked on such things from which he perishes, and used all his efforts on something that has no being and does not exist (for all evil is something non-existent), just as if someone I bought a corpse for myself at a great price instead of a living body. Meanwhile, he himself, that is, the sinner, will be saved, that is, preserved whole for eternal torment.”
And in the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church the same idea is expressed: “ There is no repentance in hell, there are other things that are weakened: there is an indefatigable worm, there the earth is dark, and everything is darkened” (Rite of burial of priests).
Fathers Council of Constantinople 1084. They especially emphasized that anathematism against those professing the doctrine of universal restoration only means a statement of the fact that such people, with their views, doom themselves and others to eternal destruction:
“To all who accept and teach to others false and pagan opinions... that the torment of sinners will end in the future life and that creation and humanity will generally be restored; and thus the Kingdom of Heaven is presented as destructible and transitory, while Jesus Christ Himself and our God conveyed to us the teaching that it is eternal and indestructible, and we, on the basis of all Holy Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, believe that the torment will be endless and the Kingdom Heavenly things are eternal; to those who, by their opinions, destroy themselves and make others partakers of eternal condemnation, anathema.”
(10th anathematism of the Council of Constantinople 1084)
The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church clearly indicated that the teaching of apokatastasis is disastrous for man.
So, Saint Basil the Great speaks of the source and consequences of this heresy (Rules summarized in questions and answers):
Question 267. If one bit is “many” and the other “few” (Luke 12:47.48); then why do others say that there is no end to torment?
Answer. What in some places of inspired Scripture is said, apparently, mutually and in secret, is made clear by what is said openly in other places. So, the Lord then decisively says that “these will go into eternal torment” (Matthew 25:46), then sends others “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (41), and in another place he calls “fiery hell” and adds: “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:47-48); and even more anciently he predicted about some through the prophet that “their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched” (Is. 66:24); therefore, if, with such a number of similar testimonies found in many places of inspired Scripture, many still, as if forgetting about all such sayings and definitions of the Lord, promise themselves an end to torment in order to more freely dare to sin, then this, of course, is one of the intrigues devilish. For if there is ever an end to eternal torment, then immortal life, without a doubt, must have an end. And if we do not allow ourselves to think about this about life, then what is the basis for putting an end to eternal torment, when the “eternal” application is equally found in both? “These,” it is said, “go into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46). And having agreed on this, you need to know that the expressions “there will be many bits and there will be fewer bits” (Luke 12:47-48) do not mean the end, but the difference of torment. For if God is a righteous Judge, rewarding not only the good, but also the wicked, to everyone according to his deeds, then one may be worthy of an unquenchable fire, but either weaker or more burning, another - an undying worm, but again causing pain, either lighter or more more cruel, according to the dignity of each, and the other - Gehenna, in which, without a doubt, there are different kinds of torment, and the other - utter darkness, where one is brought only to crying, and the other, from intensified torment, and to the gnashing of teeth. The pitch darkness itself (external), without a doubt, shows that there is something internal. And what is said in Proverbs: “in the depths of Sheol” (Prov. 9:18) makes it clear that some are in hell, but not “in the depths of Sheol,” being subjected to lighter torment. This can still be seen in bodily suffering. For one is sick with fever with fits and other ailments, another feels only fever, and this one is not the same as the other; another does not have a fever, but suffers from pain in some member, again this one more or less than the other. But this “much” and “little” were said by the Lord according to ordinary usage, as well as other similar things. For we know that a similar way of speech is often used about those suffering from some kind of illness, for example, when they talk about a person who is sick only with a fever or feels pain in the eye, wondering how much he has suffered or what needs he has endured. Why do I repeat again that being beaten “a lot” and “a little” does not mean the continuation or end of time, but the difference in punishment.”
Founder of cenobitic monasticism in Egypt Venerable Pachomius the Great Once, during a conversation with the monks who visited him, he could not understand where the “disgusting smell” was coming from. Then, by the inspiration of God, he understood where this smell came from: his guests were Origenists. He confessed: “I saw, and God is my witness, that all who read Origen and accept what he wrote will be cast into the abyss of hell. Their fate is outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth... Collect all Origen’s writings that you have , and throw it into the river."
St. Simeon for Christ's sake the holy fool also warned against following the harmful errors of Origen. In his life we read that he answered those who came to him with the question: “why such a sage deviated into heresy. One argued that Origen’s wisdom is not from God, but from the teaching and reading of many books, and the other - that it is impossible for a person, without the grace of God, to speak and write in such a way that something else is still accepted by the Orthodox." Before they even had time to ask St. Simeon asked his question, as the perspicacious saint answered them:
“Origen... went into the sea, could not get out of it and drowned in the depths.”
Blessed John Moschus describes a vision through the prayers of Saint Cyriacus, when Origen (Spiritual Meadow) was seen among other heretics in the flames of hell.
Venerable John of Damascus: “The Origenists... talk idle talk that Christ and the devil will be under the same authority” (About a hundred heresies in brief).
Rev. Nikita Stifat:
“I believe in the resurrection of the dead and confess the endless kingdom of the righteous forever and ever and that the punishment of sinners and the demons themselves will last forever and will never end and that sinners and demons will not return again to their original state, as Origen erred in the darkness” (Confession of Faith ).
Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki:
“Against Origen, who foolishly allowed a change (of conditions) in the future century and accepted the end of punishment, the creed says: “And the lives of the future century. Amen". In the Gospel: “These women go into eternal torment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46).”
Venerable John Climacus:
“Everyone, and especially the fallen, must be careful not to allow illness into their hearts.” the godless Origen; for his bad teaching, instilling in him the love of God for mankind, is very pleasing to voluptuous people.”
"Who truly has gained memory about eternal torment and the Last Judgment... he will no longer love anything temporary... and without care and laziness he will follow Christ, constantly looking to heaven and from there expecting help for himself” (Ladder, 2. 1).
“Let the memory of the eternal fire fall asleep with you every evening and rise with you” (Ladder, 7.21).
Saint Gregory the Theologian:
"Immortal soul... will be forever either punished for viciousness, or glorified for virtue” (Third Word).
Venerable Maximus the Confessor:
“Feats of virtue... are the culprits for us of the Kingdom of Heaven, just as passions and ignorance are the culprits eternal torment"(Chapters about love, 2. 34).
“And He will take vengeance on His opponents, separating, through the holy angels, the unrighteous from the righteous, the damned from the saints... And, as the truth of divine words says, He will reward for endless and endless centuries a righteous reward to everyone according to the dignity of the life he lived" (Mystagogy, XIV ).
Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov):
The death of the soul is more unfortunate than the death of the body: the dead body will be resurrected, and often the death of the body is the cause of life for the soul; on the contrary, a soul killed by evil - victim of eternal death. The soul can be killed by one thought containing some kind of blasphemy, subtle, not at all noticeable to those who do not know (Ascetic experiences).
St. Theophan the Recluse warns:“Such issues should have been resolved if we had a duty to look after and accommodate everyone. Since this is not entrusted to us, let us leave the care of them to the One who cares for everyone. You need to save your soul. - The enemy, the destroyer of souls, - through zeal for the salvation of everyone, - leaves in destruction the soul of the one to whom he puts such thoughts. St. Anthony the Great once thought about the fate of people. - An angel of the Lord appeared to him and said: Anthony! pay attention to yourself! Otherwise it’s none of your business.
Save yourself. E.F.”
I have repeatedly warned against this misconception St. John Chrysostom:
“Here we are presented with a question that is not unimportant, but one that concerns the most necessary subject and is being investigated by all people: will the fire of hell have an end? Christ revealed to us that: “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:46). I see that you shudder when you hear this; but what to do? God commands us to continually proclaim this: “show it,” he says, “to my people” (Is. 58:1). We are assigned to the ministry of the word, and therefore we need to speak unpleasant things to the listeners; although against desire, it is necessary. … So, Christ discovered that the fire of hell has no end; and Paul states that the torment will be endless, when he says that sinners “will be subject to punishment, eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9); and one more thing: do not be deceived: “neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor fools will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). And to the Jews he says: “Strive to have peace with everyone and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). Also, Christ, in response to the words: “We have done many miracles in Your name,” will say: “Depart from Me, you who do iniquity: I do not know you” (Matthew 7:22-23). And the virgins, for whom the doors were shut, could no longer enter; and about those who did not feed Him, He says: “they will go into eternal torment” (Matthew 25:46). ...This word is hard and regrettable for the listener. I know this from the feeling that I myself experience: my heart is confused and trembles, and the more I am convinced of the certainty of Gehenna, the more I tremble and am filled with fear. But we need to talk about this so that we don’t fall into Gehenna.”
"Many of us who are among us, being captive to the flesh and enslaved by circumstances real life, they believe that then nothing will happen and, referring to God’s love for mankind, they say that there is neither punishment nor torment. ... How, tell me, are you not afraid when you utter such insolence and claim that “God loves mankind and does not punish”? And if he punishes you, then, in your opinion, will he turn out to be inhumane? Why, tell me, when you sin, would you not want to be punished? Didn't He warn you about everything? Didn't he threaten? Didn't you help? Haven't I done a lot for your salvation? If the wicked are not punished, then another may say that the good are not crowned; and in this case, where will be the love of mankind and the righteousness of God? So, people, do not deceive yourselves, being deceived by the devil, because all these are his (the devil’s) thoughts. If judges, masters and teachers reward the good and punish the bad, then how would it be fitting if God did the opposite, if the good and the evil were rewarded with the same thing? When would the evil ones leave behind evil? In fact, if even in anticipation of punishment they do not lag behind evil, then, being free from this fear, not only not falling into Gehenna, but also reaching the kingdom where the evil ones would stop? I have heard some sin-lovers say that God threatened people with Gehenna as a warning, as if it were impossible for Him, being merciful, to punish anyone, especially someone who does not know Him. Tell me, you who expose God as a deceiver, who in the days of Noah poured out waves over the entire universe, caused that terrible shipwreck and caused the death of our entire race? Who sent down those lightning and thunder on the land of Sodom? Who drowned all of Egypt? Who destroyed six hundred thousand in the desert? Who burned down the Avironovo gathering? Who commanded the earth to open its mouth and swallow up the conspirators of Korah and Dathan? Who in the time of David smote seventy thousand in one instant? Who, during the prophecy of Isaiah, killed one hundred and eighty-five thousand in one night? Don’t you see the daily misfortunes that we endure when we sin? What would be the point if some were punished and others were not punished? Truly, if God is not unrighteous - and He is precisely not unrighteous - then you will certainly suffer punishment for your sins; if God does not punish because He loves mankind, then even those should not have been punished. Even for these very words conveyed by us, God punishes many in real life, so that if you do not believe the words of the threat, then at least believe the deeds of punishment.”
“There are many people who place good hopes not on the fact that they abstain from sins, but on the fact that they believe that Gehenna is not as terrible as they say about it, but is weaker than what they threaten us with, and is temporary, and not eternal, and they speculate a lot about this. Meanwhile, I can present a lot of evidence and even deduce from the very words (of Scripture) about Gehenna that it is not only no weaker than what is presented in the threats, but even much more terrible... And that it is not temporary, listen to what Paul is saying here about people who do not know God and do not believe in the Gospel, namely, that they will be subject to punishment, eternal destruction. So, how can the eternal become temporary?..”
Venerable Theodore the Studite:
And again, whoever fails in such feats is deprived not of something small, insignificant and human, but of the most Divine and Heavenly things. For those who achieve what they seek through much patience, constant long-suffering and keeping the commandments will inherit the kingdom of heaven and immortality, eternal life and ineffable and inscrutable peace with eternal blessings; and those who sin through negligence, laziness, addiction and love for this world and for deadly and corrupting pleasures, inherit eternal torment, endless shame and standing on the edge, having heard the terrible voice of the Judge of all and the Lord of God: get away from Me, cursed into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angel. (Matthew 25:41).
But let us never hear this, my children and brothers, and never be separated from the Saints and the Righteous by a pitiful and inexpressible excommunication. When they are received into unspeakable and incomprehensible joy, and insatiable pleasure, as the Divine Scripture says about this, they will “lie down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Matthew 8:11). We will have to go with the demons to where the unquenchable fire, the unquenchable worm, the gnashing of teeth, the great abyss, the unbearable tartarus, the insoluble bonds, the darkest hell, and not for a few years or for a year, and not for a hundred or a thousand years: for the torment will have no end, as Origen thinks, but forever and ever, as the Lord said(Matthew 25, 46). Where then, brothers, according to the Saints, is the father or mother for deliverance? - “Brother,” it is said, “will not deliver: will a man deliver? He will not give God treason for his sake, and the price of the deliverance of his soul" (Psalm 48:8, 9) (Catechetical teachings. Teaching 18th. About the terrible day of judgment).
Venerable Isaac the Syrian wrote about the torment of Gehenna:
I say that those tormented in Gehenna are struck by the scourge of love. And how bitter and cruel is this torment of love! For those who feel that they have sinned against love endure torment greater than any torment that brings fear; The sadness that strikes the heart for sin against love is more stinging than any possible punishment. It is inappropriate for a person to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of God’s love. Love is a product of the knowledge of truth, which (as everyone agrees) is given to everyone in general. But love, with its power, acts in two ways: it torments sinners, as here it happens to a friend to suffer from a friend, and it brings joy to those who keep their duty. And so, in my opinion, This is the torment of Gehenna - it is repentance. Love intoxicates the souls of the sons of heaven with its joys.
(Reverend Isaac the Syrian. Ascetic words. Homily 18)
The Savior calls the many abodes of the Father the different measures of the mind of those placed in that country, that is, the differences and diversity of spiritual gifts that are enjoyed according to the measure of the mind. For he called the monasteries many not according to the variety of places, but according to the degree of talent. ...in the next century, all the righteous are not separately settled in one country, but each in its own measure is illuminated by one mental sun and, according to its dignity, attracts joy and joy, as if from the same air, from the same place, throne, spectacle and image. And no one sees the measure of his friend, both higher and lower, so that if he sees the superior grace of a friend and his own deprivation, this would not be a cause of sadness and sorrow for him. Let this not happen where there is neither sorrow nor sighing! On the contrary, everyone, according to the grace given to him, rejoices internally in his own measure. Outside of all there is one spectacle and one country, and besides these two degrees there is no other intermediate degree, I mean one degree is higher, the other is lower, Among them there is diversity in the difference of rewards.
If this is true (as indeed it is true), what is more senseless or unreasonable than such speech: “It is enough for me to avoid Gehenna, but I do not care about entering the Kingdom”? For to avoid Gehenna and that means to enter the Kingdom; just as to lose the Kingdom means to enter Gehenna. Scripture has not given us three countries, but what does it say? “When the Son of man comes in His glory... and He will set the sheep at His right hand, and the goats at His right hand” (Matthew 25:31,33.). He did not call the host three, but two - one on the right hand, the other on the left. And he divided the boundaries of their various abodes, saying: “And these, that is, sinners, come, to eternal damnation but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46); “they will shine like the sun” (Matt. 13:43). And again: “... from the east and the west they will come and lie down in the bosom of Abraham in the kingdom of heaven: but the sons of the kingdom will be driven out into utter darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:11,12), which is more terrible than any fire. Have you not understood from this that the state is opposite to the upper degree, and Is there the most painful Gehenna?»
(Reverend Isaac the Syrian. Ascetic words. Homily 58)
St. Simeon of Thessalonica:
“That life will be limitless and endless; and just as life will be continuous, so will everyone’s lot - glory or torment - be limitless and endless. However, many wicked people talk idle talk about this, to their detriment, daring to deny the eternity of future torment. Such insolence instilled in them by the deceptions and cunning of the evil one so that, while waiting for the end of torment, they would not leave a single deed of evil undone: because if there is an end to torment, then every sin will one day be forgiven, and those who reject God, the ungodly and lawless, will once glorified with the pious and saints. What word (could be) more wicked than this? If there is an end to torment, then there will be an end to the Kingdom, and, therefore, there is no righteousness with God: meanwhile, the Lord is righteous and loves righteousness (Ps. 107). Therefore, He also rightly says, speaking about the last part, that these go into eternal torment (Matthew 25:46), and not about the right hand: but the righteous into eternal life; and again about sinners: their worm does not die and the fire does not die. does not fade away (Mk. 9, 44). And rightly so: since here we have time to make amends for wrongdoings while we have freedom of choice; and then there will be one time - separation and reward according to the merits of what everyone has chosen for themselves. No one possessed by sins, or any delusion, should deceive himself with such (deceptions) for justification or pleasure; Torment for the unrepentant is eternal. This is why repentance is (open) until the last breath: in fact, if there was any benefit from it there, it would not have been given here at all. And what wonder would the Savior’s economy have done if there had been repentance or an end to torment? Do you see the madness of the wicked?"
Rev. Simeon the New Theologian:
“It is impossible for anyone to be saved who does not have shameless and firm faith in Christ the Lord, who does not believe without hesitation the words of God, who does not have love for God and people, love that comes from a good conscience, by virtue of which (good conscience) humility and mercy are born .
And blessed is the man who has learned that with the help of the grace of Christ all good can be done; the one who does not know this is cursed; Such a one holds the faith of Christ in vain.
So, whoever has not been deemed worthy to receive the grace of Christ and to recognize it intellectually as inherent in his soul, bears the name of Christian in vain; he is the same with the infidels. ...
And it is impossible for a Christian to find mercy from God if he does not know this grace. For just as Christ could not perform signs and wonders for unbelievers, so He cannot have mercy on any of those who, although they believe in Him, did not first know that the grace of Christ, given by Him and through Him, is itself mercy and the rescue. It is impossible for anyone to be saved in any other way unless he receives divine grace, which has the power to deify him, or to make him a god by grace.”
Elder Paisiy Svyatogorets:
Let us strive with all our might to gain paradise, because without striving no one can enter it. The gates of heaven are very narrow, and do not listen to those who tell you that we will all be saved. This is the devil's snare to keep us from struggling. This is good for him.
Venerable Silouan of Athos:
“Glory to the Lord that He gave us repentance, and through repentance we will all be saved, without exception. Only those who do not want to repent will not be saved, and in this I see their despair, and I cry a lot, feeling sorry for them.”
“It’s a pity for those people who don’t know God. They do not see eternal light and after death they go into eternal darkness. We know this because the Holy Spirit in the Church reveals to the saints what is in heaven and what is in hell.”
3. Hell lies “in the depths of the human heart”
Thus, the Holy Fathers teach that The reason for hell, the reason for the sinner’s rejection of God in the next century, is not in the “wrath” of God, not in His desire to “punish,” but in the will of man himself, which is not encroached upon by the Lord, who created us free. Love, goodness, self-denial and therefore salvation cannot be forced upon a person. And if a person does not choose good, then God, loving him as such, leaves him to the choice made by himself. Hell, like the Kingdom of God, begins during life in the soul of a person, and in eternity like will be united with like. The living will spiritually enter paradise, to the Source of life, God, to whom they strove in their earthly life, the dead in spirit - to where the “second death” will be (Rev. 21:8).Rev. Barsanuphius of Optina speaks:
“At present, not only among the laity, but also among the young clergy, the following conviction is beginning to spread: as if eternal torment is incompatible with the infinite mercy of God, therefore, torment is not eternal. Such a misconception stems from a misunderstanding of the matter. Eternal torment and eternal bliss are not that something that only comes from outside. But all this is primarily within the person himself. “...The Kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21). A sick body suffers on earth, and the stronger the illness, the greater the torment. So the soul, infected with various diseases, begins to suffer severely during the transition to Eternal Life. An incurable bodily illness ends in death, but how can a mental illness end when there is no death for the soul. Malice, anger, irritability, fornication and other mental illnesses are such vermin that crawl after a person into Eternal Life. Hence, the purpose of life is to crush these reptiles here on earth in order to completely cleanse your soul. before death, say with our Savior: “...The prince of this world is coming, and he will have nothing in me” (Jn. 14, 30). A sinful soul, not purified by repentance, cannot be in the community of saints. Even if they placed her in heaven, she herself would be unbearable to remain there and would strive to leave there.
Indeed, what is it like to be unmerciful among the merciful, prodigal among the chaste, evil among the loving, etc.”
Priest Georgy Maximov writes:
“The main mistake is that “optimist theologians” understand the torments of hell as an action on the part of God, while St. the fathers taught that it is actually a consequence caused by the personality itself. (Moreover, the “Message of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith” directly anathematizes those who teach that God is the author of eternal punishment for unrepentant sinners).
It is not God who is preparing an eternity of hell. Hell, according to the Rev. Macarius of Egypt, lies “in the depths of the human heart.” “In the same way,” explains St. Simeon the New Theologian, “just as the blind, who do not see the shining sun, although they are completely illuminated by it, remain outside the light, being removed from it by sense and sight; so the Divine light of the Trinity will be in everything, but sinners, imprisoned in darkness, and among him will not see him..., but scorched and condemned by their own conscience, they will have unspeakable torment and unspeakable sorrow forever."
Reasoning about this, Saint Theophan the Recluse asks: “Don’t you really have such a hope that God, by sovereign power, will forgive sinners and bring them into heaven. I ask you to judge whether this is good and whether such persons are suitable for heaven?” Sin is not something external, but internal and passing through. When someone sins, sin perverts his entire composition, defiles and darkens him. If you forgive a sinner with an external sentence, but inside him leave everything as it was, without cleaning it up, then even after such forgiveness he will remain all filthy and gloomy. Such will be the one whom God would forgive by His sovereign power, without his internal purification. Imagine that such an unclean and gloomy person enters heaven. What will it be? An Ethiopian among the whitewashed. Is it appropriate?"
“The law of life is this,” writes St. Theophan the Recluse, “that as soon as someone puts here is the seed of repentance, even if it’s with his last breath, he won’t die. This seed will grow and bear fruit - eternal salvation. And if someone here does not plant the seed of repentance and moves there with the spirit of unrepentant persistence in sins, then there he will forever remain with the same spirit, and the fruit from him will be reaped forever according to his kind, God’s eternal rejection.”
Rev. Silouan wrote that “our will is a copper wall between us and God, and does not allow us to get closer to Him or contemplate His mercy.”
Alexander Kalomiros also writes:
“Origen, like all rationalists like him, was unable to understand that the acceptance or rejection of Divine grace depends entirely on rational beings themselves; that God, like the Sun, will never stop shining in equally both on the righteous and on the sinful, but rational beings, however, are completely free to accept or reject His mercy and love; that, finally, God, out of His true love, does not force His creatures to accept Him, but completely respects their free decision.
… My brothers, unfortunately for us, heaven or hell does not depend on God. If their reality depended only on God, we would have nothing to fear. What can you be afraid of in the face of absolute Love? But this, I repeat, does not depend on God. It's entirely up to us, and that's the tragedy.
Most Christians, even Orthodox Christians, have fallen into this trap. They perceive God as responsible for either forgiving us or punishing us. This, my brothers, is a terrible lie that causes most people to lose eternal life. This happens mainly because, thinking about divine love, people reassure themselves that God will forgive them everything, because He is always loving, He always forgives, He is always on man’s side.
However, the point is not in legal forgiveness, but in the sin itself... Sin is, first of all, a path leading away from God. Sin erects a wall between us and God... Our eternal salvation or our eternal death does not depend on the will and desire of God, but on our own determination, on the choice of our free will...
What is God's judgment? God is Truth and Light. God's judgment is nothing other than our union with Truth and Light. The “books” will be opened (cf. Rev. 20:12). What are these “books”? These are our hearts. Our hearts will be penetrated by the all-pervading Light emanating from God, and then everything that is hidden in them will be revealed. Those hearts in which love for God is hidden, seeing the divine Light, will rejoice. Those same hearts that, on the contrary, harbored hatred for God, will, accepting this piercing Light of Truth, suffer and torment, since they hated it all their lives.
So it is not God's decision that will determine the eternal fate of people, not God's reward or punishment, but what was hidden in each heart; what has been in our hearts all our lives will be laid bare on the day of judgment. This naked state - call it reward or punishment - does not depend on God, it depends on the love or hatred that reigns in our hearts. Love contains bliss, hatred contains despair, bitterness, torment, sadness, anger, anxiety, confusion, darkness and all other internal states that constitute hell.”
St. Irenaeus of Lyons explains that, in essence, hell is the voluntary refusal of a creature to God:
“To all who maintain love for Him, He gives His fellowship. Fellowship with God is life and light and the enjoyment of all the good things that He has. And those who, of their own free will, depart from Him, He subjects to excommunication from Himself, which they they themselves have chosen. Separation from God is death and separation from the light is darkness, and alienation from God is the deprivation of all the blessings that He has. But the blessings of God are eternal and without end, therefore their deprivation is eternal and without end, just as. in relation to the immeasurable light, those who blind themselves or are blinded by others are forever deprived of its sweetness, not because the light causes them the torment of blindness, but because blindness itself causes them misfortune.”
“To accept, together with Origen, that evil will ultimately exhaust itself and only God will remain infinite means forgetting about the absolute nature of personal freedom: absolute precisely because this freedom is in the image of God.”
(Olivier Clément).
Priest Gergiy Maximov:
“From the point of view of Orthodox theology, human freedom, as Fr. George Florovsky, must include the freedom to make a decision even against God, “for the salvation of people is prepared not by violence and autocracy, but by conviction and good disposition. Therefore, everyone has complete authority over his own salvation, so that both those crowned and those punished justly receive what they have chosen" ( Venerable Isidore Pelusiot)».
“God honored man by granting him freedom,” writes Saint Gregory the Theologian, - so that good belongs personally to the one who chooses it, no less than to the One who laid the foundation for good in nature.”
Prot. Mikhail Pomazansky also writes that by sin a person separates himself from God and salvation both in this life and, consequently, in the future:
“We know that the Lord “wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” But a person is capable of pushing away God’s mercy and the means of salvation with his own evil will. St. John Chrysostom, interpreting the image of the Last Judgment, notes: “When He (the Lord) spoke about the kingdom, he said: “Come, blessed ones, inherit the kingdom,” he added: “prepared for you from the creation of the world,” and speaking about fire , said not so, but added: “prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:34-41). For I have prepared a kingdom for you, not for you, but for the devil and his angels. fire, then blame yourself for it.”
We have no right to understand the words of the Lord only conditionally, as a threat, as some kind of pedagogical measure used by the Savior. If we understand this, we will sin, since the Savior does not instill in us such an understanding, and we will expose ourselves to the wrath of God, according to the words of the psalmist: “Why does the wicked despise God, saying in his heart: “You will not require it”” (Ps. 9:34) .
However, the very concept of “anger” in relation to God is conditional and humanoid, as we learn about this from the instructions of St. Anthony the Great. He says:
“God is good and impassive and unchangeable. If anyone, recognizing that it is blessed and true that God does not change, is nevertheless perplexed as to how He (being such) rejoices over the good, turns away from the evil, is angry with sinners, and when they repent, is merciful to them: then it must be said that God does not rejoice and is not angry, for joy and anger are passions. being always the same. And when we are good, we enter into communication with God, by similarity with Him, and when we become evil, we move away from Him, by living virtuously, we become God’s, and when we become evil, we become God’s. rejected from Him, and this does not mean that He has anger against us, but the fact that our sins do not allow God to shine on us, but unite us with tormenting demons. If we then receive permission from our sins through prayers and acts of kindness, this does not mean that. we have pleased God and changed Him, but that through such actions and our turning to God, having healed the evil that exists in us, we again become able to taste God’s goodness; so to say: God turns away from the wicked is the same as saying: the sun is hidden from those deprived of sight" (Philokalia)."
(Orthodox dogmatic theology)
4. Divine justice is one of the expressions of Divine love
Rev. Justin Popovich writes in Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church:“The revealed teaching about righteousness as a divine property and about God as an All-Just Judge was vigilantly guarded and constantly confessed by the Church through the fathers and teachers, especially when it was in danger from heretics (Marcionites, Manichaeans, etc.). Those who were not able to logically reconcile the presence of the property in God alone love and the properties of justice, these heretics got out of the difficulty by resorting to bitheism. According to their teaching, there are two gods: the New Testament god of goodness, love and mercy and the Old Testament god of harsh and merciless truth, judging and punishing. The Fathers and teachers of the Church rejected this teaching as. blasphemous, for, according to the teaching of the Church, love and truth in God are two absolute and completely concordant properties, never contradicting one another in any way, but always acting in perfect harmony with one another, one in the other and one through the other. If this had not happened, then God, having turned into a chaotic being, would have ceased to be God and would have destroyed Himself. Love in God is always righteous, just as truth is always loving. Containing absolute goodness, absolute love, absolute righteousness, God at the same time contains absolute bliss. And when God’s righteousness, love, and goodness are manifested in this world - which also contain bliss - then people, acquiring them, are rewarded with bliss along with them. And everything that is outside them, that is, evil and sin, contains sorrow and torment.
Refuting Marcion’s teaching about two gods: the Old Testament - harsh and evil, and the New Testament - good and merciful, Saint Irenaeus writes: “If God, who judges, is not at the same time good (bonus), in order to show mercy to those to whom it is due... then He will turn out to be an unjust and unwise judge... So, Marcion, dividing God into two, calling one good , good (bonus), and the other - judging (judicalem), in both of them destroys God. For the one who judges (God), if he is not good at the same time, is not God, because he who does not have goodness (bonitas) is not God; and the good (God), if he is not at the same time judging (judicalis), will not, like the first, be God, being deprived of the quality of God.” “Communion with God is communication with eternal life, holiness, bliss and all Divine blessings, and removal and alienation from God through sins is alienation from all Divine blessings, as a result of which sinners will be in eternal torment not because God Himself punished them in advance, but the punishment will befall them because they themselves deprived themselves of all Divine blessings.”
In an essay against Marcion Tertullian shows that truth is not only moral good in itself, but also its guardian; just as kindness not only does not exclude truth, but without it it turns out to be a weak good nature, giving evil an unpunished scope, which is completely contrary to the Divine nature, which loves only the good. God allows for sins punishments that contain good in themselves, although [they] are a painful evil for those who deserve them and endure them, for they agree with the truth, serve as protectors of all that is good and always lead to the triumph of good.
As an argument against God's righteousness and justice, an argument is often put forward: in this world, the righteous often suffer, while sinners prosper. But this fact receives its only possible correct explanation only in the light of the revealed teaching of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, according to which life on earth is not a time of either final reward or final punishment on the part of God; the sorrows of the righteous and the well-being of sinners in this world often depend on people and circumstances created by people themselves. God, allowing or sending sorrow to the righteous, acts according to His all-wise righteousness, for there is not a righteous person on earth who has not sinned in some way (see 1 John 1:8; 3 Kings 8:46; Proverbs 20:9; Job .14:4-5, 15:14; Ps.50:7; Eccl.7:20). God does this with a good intention: in order to strengthen them even more in goodness through sorrows, confirm them in faith and thereby cleanse them from all sin (see 1 Pet. 1:6-7; 2 Cor. 4:17; Rom. 8:18, 5 :3-5; Job.23:10; Prov.17:21; Zech.13:9; Wis.3:6; :10). By showering sinners in this world with His blessings, God does this in order to encourage them with kindness to repentance, showing them His merciful righteousness and testifying that bliss and joy are found only in Divine good (see Rom. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Isaiah 30:18). When doing this or that, God acts according to His eternal righteousness, for as the omniscient He knows to the smallest detail what is in a person (see John 2:25). But along with such God’s influence on the righteous and sinners, a purely subjective process takes place in the souls of both the former and the latter: with the increase in the suffering of the righteous, God’s consolation also increases in them (see 2 Cor. 1:5-7, 4:8, 17, 6:4-10; 1 Cor.4:11-13; Rom.14:17); sinners, despite all their outward prosperity, are often tormented by their conscience for their sins and iniquities (see Wisdom 11:17, 12:27).”
Priest Georgy Maximov, following patristic teaching, explains that Divine justice, rewarding man according to the fruits of his life, cannot be opposed to the love of God, because God’s justice is His love, rewarding everyone with what he chooses arbitrarily with his whole life:
“...“eschatological optimism” unambiguously tramples on the primordial Christian understanding of hellish torment, which has the deepest biblical and patristic foundations, primarily as retribution. This leads to very sad results: due to such a one-sided emphasis on personal freedom, the impression arises that for salvation it is enough just to desire to be with God, and this, of course, is a delusion, because in this case both asceticism and perfection in the commandments are deprived of all meaning , and, ultimately, the very existence of the Church and Christianity.
Such an unhealthy bias is not characteristic of the patristic criticism of apocatastasis. It, organically growing out of biblical theology, is centered precisely around the truth of Divine justice. It is noteworthy that, according to the above thought of the Monk Isidore Pelusiot, personal freedom is conditioned precisely by this justice. And to the champions of “eschatological optimism,” we must follow the Fathers of the Church and say: yes, there cannot be universal salvation, because it is unjust. Of course, no one will envy the generosity of the Employer when He equally rewards the workers of the tenth hour and those who endured the heat and severity of the day. But in any case, we are talking about workers, not about slackers.
Finally... the denial of free will leads to the denial of free will itself. God's love, for which “optimist” eschatologists verbally advocate: “The concept of universal salvation, denying the eternity of hell, ignores both the incomprehensible mystery of God’s love, which is above all our rational or sentimental concepts, and the mystery human personality and her freedom. God’s love presupposes complete respect for His creatures, even to the point of “free impotence” to deny them freedom” [Archimandrite Placidas (Dezeus)].
Thus, the position of supporters of apocatastasis leads not only to the denial of the value of human freedom, but also to the denial of both Divine justice and Divine love. ...One cannot deny the other, since Divine justice is one of the expressions of Divine love"
(Priest Georgy Maximov).
Archim. Placida (Dezeus) also writes that the theory of apocatastasis leads to the denial of God’s love itself, for which its supporters so verbally advocate:
“The concept of universal salvation, denying the eternity of hell, ignores both the incomprehensible mystery of God’s love, which is above all our rational or sentimental concepts, and the mystery of the human person and its freedom. God’s love presupposes complete respect for His creatures, even to the point of “free impotence” to refuse they are free."
Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) also wrote that God’s truth is one of the expressions of God’s love:
“The stated teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church on retribution explains why that duality, that contradiction between justice and Divine love, which various heretical sects could not resolve in any way, never arose in their minds... The Fathers, in accordance with Scripture, did not understand the truth of God in the sense of punishment anger, but in the sense of this property of God, according to which God rewards every free being according to his deeds, that is, in accordance with where man has determined himself... The truth of God is guided not by a feeling of insult, but by the moral dignity of existence. This truth cannot contradict love, for it is forced not by the desire for satisfaction, which excludes love, but by the direct impossibility, without denying Oneself, of giving peace and life to lawlessness.”
5. Why can't hell be eternal?
Portraying in the brightest and most joyful features eternal life righteous after the General Judgment, the word of God speaks with the same affirmation and certainty about eternal torment evil.
"Depart from Me, you cursed into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” Jesus Christ will say on the day of judgment... "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life"(Matthew 25, 41, 46).
“It is better for you to enter life crippled than to go into hell with two hands, into the fire.” unquenchable where their worm does not die, and the fire doesn't go out"(Mark 9, 43-46, also 45-49).
“Those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ... will be punished, eternal destruction"(2 Thess. 1, 8, 9).
“And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awaken, some to eternal life, others to eternal reproach and shame"(Dan. 12:2).
St. Theophan the Recluse explains that hell cannot but be eternal precisely because repentance of unrepentant sinners is impossible in it:“You all rely on the goodness of God, but forget about the truth of God, while the Lord is “good and righteous”... Others think that, of course, sinners cannot be left without punishment and torment, but these torments will not last forever: the outcasts will suffer and suffer.” , and then to heaven. How passionately we want to seem more merciful than the Lord Himself! But this invention is also untenable: for hell is not a place of purification, but a place of execution, tormenting without purifying. No matter how much hell burns someone, the burned one will still be just as unclean, worthy of the same burning, and not of heaven. That’s why there will be no end to the burning.”
“You forget that there will be eternity there, not time; therefore, everything there will be forever, and not temporary. You count the torment as hundreds, thousands and millions of years, but then the first minute will begin, and there will be no end to it, for there will be an eternal minute. The score won’t go any further, but will be in the first minute, and it will stay that way.”
“The righteous will go into eternal life, and the demonized sinners will go into eternal torment, into community with demons. Will these torments end? If Satan’s malice and satanism end, then the torment will end. Will Satan’s malice and satanism end? Let’s see and see then. .. Until then, let us believe that just as eternal life has no end, so the eternal torment that threatens sinners will have no end. How he himself is amazed by the power of the Cross of the Lord! How all his cunning and malice are still amazed by this power! And everything goes against him, and the further he goes, the more he persists. , then there is no hope for people who are maddened by its action. This means that it is impossible not to end up in hell. eternal torment".
Saint Irenaeus of Lyons wrote:
“To all who keep love for Him, He gives His fellowship. Communication with God is life and light and enjoyment of all the good things that He has. And those who of their own free will depart from Him, He subjects them to excommunication from Himself, which they themselves chose. Separation from God is death, and separation from the light is darkness, and alienation from God is the deprivation of all the blessings that He has. Therefore, those who, through their apostasy, have lost the above, as deprived of all blessings, are in all kinds of torment, not because God Himself subjected them to punishment in advance, but punishment befalls them due to their deprivation of all goods. But the blessings of God are eternal and without end, therefore their deprivation is eternal and without end., just as in relation to the immeasurable light those who blind themselves or are blinded by others are always deprived of the sweetness of light, not because the light causes them the torment of blindness, but blindness itself causes them misfortune.”
Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria speaks:
“The sinner, having withdrawn through his sins from the light of truth, is already in darkness in this life, but since there is still hope for conversion, this darkness is not pitch darkness. And after death there will be a review of his deeds, and if he has not repented here, then pitch darkness will surround him there. For then there is no longer any hope of conversion, and a complete deprivation of Divine grace ensues. While the sinner is here, although he receives a little Divine blessings - I’m talking about sensory blessings - he is still a servant of God, because he lives in the house of God, that is, among God’s creations, and God feeds and preserves him. And then he will be completely separated from God, no longer having any participation in any good things: this is darkness, called pitch darkness, in contrast to the present, not pitch darkness, when the sinner still has hope of repentance.”
The Church teaches that “repentance is impossible for evil spirits, not because they are forbidden to repent, and not because God is unable to forgive them, but solely because they themselves are so deeply rooted in their freely chosen state of apostasy that they do not want to and will never want to return to God. This is, as St. Gregory the Dvoeslov writes, “the reason that they do not pray for the devil and his angels, who are condemned to eternal punishment.”
(Priest Georgy Maximov).
6. What does the expression “eternal” hell mean?
Proponents of apocatastasis resort to another argument: they claim that it is as if Greek word“αίώνιος”, used in Scripture, as well as by the Greek-speaking holy fathers, does not actually mean “eternal” in the sense of infinite, but simply “very long”, and therefore it is as if when it speaks of “eternal torment”, it means that it is supposedly not eternal, but finite.However, this theory is destroyed by the simple fact that regarding future punishment the evangelist used exactly the same word “αίώνιος” as was used about future bliss: “And these will go away into eternal torment (κόλασιν αίώνιον), and the righteous into eternal life” (ζωήν αίώνιον) (Matt. 25:46). Thus, if, as no one doubts, heaven will be endless, then the same is said about hell.
“This is the word “αίώνιος,” notes priest Georgy Maksimov, - in Scripture is also applied to God himself, when He is called “the eternal God” - in Scripture is also applied to God himself, when He is called “the eternal God” (Rom. 14:25). Will they really also claim that this simply means “a very long God”? Here is a vivid example of the absurdities and blasphemies to which stubborn resistance to the truth can lead people.”
Moreover, the words of the holy fathers leave no room for such interpretations. They teach precisely about endless heaven and hell, that after the Last Judgment eternity will come, when there will be no more time, and, therefore, there will be no time periods that could end.
Similar arguments were also answered by St. Theophan the Recluse:
“Well, okay: let the torment, in your opinion, not be eternal; how long will they last? Even if it’s a thousand thousand years, it still has to end,” you say. ...You forget that there will be eternity there, not time; therefore, everything there will be forever, and not temporary. You count the torment as hundreds, thousands and millions of years, but then the first minute will begin, and there will be no end to it, for there will be an eternal minute. The score won’t go any further, but will be in the first minute, and it will stay that way.”
“Eternity in Christ Jesus is a state of being outside and above time,” writes Athanasius Delicostopoulos.
“Torment cannot be long- or short-term, because “there will be no more time” (Rev. 10:6), - formulates the same thought priest Georgy Maksimov. He notes that supporters of apocastasis misunderstand eternity as “the continuation of our present existence, only in the absence of death. But Orthodoxy thinks completely differently: eternity is another existence. As St. John of Damascus writes, “eternal life and eternal torment signify the infinity of the future century. For time after the resurrection will no longer be counted in days and nights, or, better yet, then there will be one non-evening day, since the Sun of righteousness will shine clearly for the righteous, and for deep, endless night will come for sinners. Therefore, how will the thousand-year time of Origen’s restoration be calculated?” (An accurate statement of the Orthodox faith).
Rev. Gregory of Sinaite offers...an amazingly powerful image: “Just as the germs of hellish torment lurk invisibly in the souls of sinners already on earth, so the firstfruits of heavenly blessings are communicated in the hearts of the righteous through the Holy Spirit.” That is, by our death we give birth to that eternal fate that we have been carrying within ourselves all this life. This is the deepest meaning of this temporary life, which is ignored in “optimistic” theology - “here victorious crowns are given to the winners as pledges; just as for the vanquished, here is the beginning of their shame and torment” (Rev. Simeon the New Theologian).”
7. About the descent of Christ into hell
“Relatively recently, another variation of “optimistic theology” has appeared. Its supporters... Firstly, they teach that the Lord Jesus Christ, after dying on the cross, descended into hell and brought out of it the souls of absolutely all the people who had died before. Secondly, they say, the descent into hell was not a one-time act, but is a continuing action, so that Christ, as it were, constantly remains in hell, so that he can meet the souls of all dying people there and preach to them, and these souls are already convinced after death directly by Christ, accept Orthodoxy and are led out of hell.First of all, it should be noted that the idea that Christ, having descended into hell, freed the souls of absolutely everyone there, is not characteristic of the Church. If we turn to the works of the holy fathers, we will see a completely different teaching.”
(Priest Georgy Maximov)
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem spoke about bringing out of hell only the Old Testament saints, also St. Ephraim the Syrian, Blessed Jerome, St. John Cassian, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. John Chrysostom, St. John of Damascus, St. Gregory the Dvoeslov.
This doctrine has been confirmed by Toledo Cathedral 625, which decreed: “He descended into hell to tear out the saints held there.” The Roman Council of 745 recognized that the Lord descended into hell not to free the damned from it or to destroy the hell of condemnation, but to free the righteous who preceded Him.
We see the same teaching among the later saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, for example, they write like this Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria, Saint Gregory Palamas, Saint Demetrius of Rostov, Saint Philaret of Moscow, Saint Nicholas of Serbia.
Orthodox dogmatic theology:
“The death of Christ and His successive descent into hell (1 Pet. 3, 19,20; 4, 6; Eph. 4, 8-10) mean in a narrow sense the deliverance from hell of the souls of the deceased first ancestors, prophets and righteous of the pre-Christian world.
...Christ, after His death on the cross, descended with His soul and His Divinity into hell, while His body was in the tomb, preached salvation to the captives of hell and led from there all the Old Testament righteous people to the bright abodes of the Heavenly King (Orthodox Confession).”
The same is written in the liturgical books of the Orthodox Church. Thus, at Easter Matins in the Synaxarion, according to the 6th canto, it is said: “The Lord has now snatched human nature from the treasures of hell, raised it to heaven and brought incorruption to the ancient property. However, having descended into hell, He did not resurrect everyone, but only those who chose to believe Him. And free the souls of the saints from the ages, held by need, from hell.”
Priest Georgy Maximov:
“The assertion that the Lord continues to be in hell, preaching there to new souls of the dying and convincing them to believe in Him, is a completely new teaching, never before known to the Church and alien to its faith. Which in itself brings him under the words of the apostle: “Whoever preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:9).
The Church teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ descended into hell as a deified soul when it remained separated by death from His body. Then his soul united with his body and the Resurrection occurred, and then the miraculous Ascension into heaven, and now Christ, according to humanity, dwells at the right hand of the Father.
The new teaching indicated above contradicts the words of the apostles, who said that the Lord, “having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, by whom He went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1 Pet. 3:18-19); “It is said: He ascended on high, took captivity captive and gave gifts to men. And what does “ascended” mean, if not that He had previously descended into the underworlds of the earth? He who descended, He is also He who ascended above all the heavens, to fill all things” (Eph. 4:8-10).
It is clearly said: “preached” and not “preaches” and “descended into the underworld”, after which “ascended”, and not “constantly descends” or “descended and remains in the underworld”. The Apostle Peter speaks quite definitely about where Christ dwells: “Having ascended into heaven, he dwells at the right hand of God” (1 Pet. 3:22).
Besides, false teaching deprives the very meaning of human life on earth. By Orthodox teaching, this life is given to a person as a time to choose whether he is with God or against God, and the choice made, expressed in the words and deeds of a person, determines his posthumous fate.
Finally, the indicated false teaching deprives the existence of the earthly Church of meaning, because with this approach it becomes completely unnecessary: if we accept that after death Christ still personally meets everyone in hell and gives the opportunity to enter heaven, then what difference does it make - to be in the Church or outside of it, to lead an ascetic life or to wallow in sins? , if everyone has the same ending?
8. Why is it impossible to believe and repent in hell?
Rev. John of Damascus writes that beyond death there is no repentance for people:
“You need to know that the fall is for angels what death is for people. For after the fall there is no repentance for them, just like for people it is impossible after death».
Alexander Kalomiros writes about the immutability of the essence of things in eternity:
“All these punishments act and have their meaning only in the current perverted order of things; they do not extend beyond the boundaries of this corruptible life. Their goal is to correct what can be corrected, to change our spiritual state for the better, while it is still possible to change something in this changing world. After the General Resurrection there can be no more changes. Eternity and incorruptibility are the state of unchangeable things. Then there will be no more changes, but only development in the state that was chosen by free individuals; eternal and endless development, but not change. There will be no change in the spiritual direction itself, there will be no return."
The fact that the new teaching about posthumous repentance is alien to the Church is also written by Archimandrite Rafail (Karelin). He also draws attention to the fact that this contradicts the patristic teaching on salvation, because “if it is possible to turn to Christ in hell, and at any time a person wants, then earthly life ceases to be a factor determining eternity,” whereas in fact After the grave, a person will no longer be able to change his fate. Recalling the prophetic word: “Who in hell will confess to You?” (Ps. 6, 6) - archim. Raphael writes:
“To confess means to express one’s faith and belonging to a particular denomination. The soul of an unbeliever and a non-believer cannot accept after death in hell Orthodox faith, i.e. to be born again. In the afterlife, what constitutes the content of the human soul is revealed, what was acquired in earthly life.
In the works of the holy fathers the same call sounds like the sound of an alarm bell: to cherish the time of earthly life, to cherish every day and hour - after death it will be too late. The Apostle Paul writes that a person has to die once, and then judgment - a private trial of the soul until the Last Judgment.
… In hell, a person's soul cannot help itself. There's no choice confession or change of faith. Only the living who remained on earth and the Church itself, praying for the departed, can help some to be saved, under two indispensable conditions: 1) if the person was Orthodox and belonged to the earthly Church; 2) if he repented of his sins, did good deeds, but could not properly correct himself and died in an uncertain spiritual state, when good in his soul was mixed with evil. Then the Church can fill in what is missing without changing the direction of the individual himself.
If posthumous conversion to Orthodoxy were possible, then the Church would reflect this in its liturgics and compose prayers for the saving meeting of the soul with Christ in hell. Then the duty of love would command us to pray that the souls of pagans, Jews, and Mohammedans after death would confess Christ as their Savior in hell and receive baptism and other sacraments there. Then it would be possible to perform funeral services for the unbaptized from Christian families in the hope that they will make up for what was lost.”
Archim. Rafail (Karelin) explains, why is it impossible for true saving faith to be born in hell, emphasizing that the theory of baptism in hell denies “the most important thing for a posthumous meeting with the Savior and eternal union with Him - faith as a free choice, as an act of will, as a necessity for the moral determination of one’s personality, faith in Christ - Redeemer and Savior. ...without which there can be no true love for God. …[In hell] the unbeliever leaps from the realm of ignorance and ignorance into the realm of evidence, where he encounters Christ in His divine glory. Man here is determined by evidence itself; the possibility of faith and unbelief is taken away. That's why his moral relationship to God is no longer possible, and without this, internal union is impossible. A person who during his lifetime has united his soul with the idols of his own passions and ideological lies (and every lie is from a demon), cannot enter into unity with the All-Holy.”
Arch. Raphael, following patristic teaching, explains that after death, changes occur in the will of a person, depriving him of the opportunity to repentantly turn to Christ:
« Rev. Maxim the Confessor, a great Christian thinker, in a dispute with the Monophysites, points out that in the human will itself two aspects can be distinguished: natural will as desire (the ancient Fathers called it irritable force, some modern theologians - reactive), and gnomic will - the possibility of choice. ... Rev. Maximus the Confessor says that human freedom is realized through life according to God, and then the gnomic will is united with the natural one. When a person is possessed by Satan, he is enslaved and the will undergoes self-decomposition. This process of destruction of the gnomic will has its end in hell... In hell, the natural will of man remains, and the gnomic will ceases to act, since faith - this kingdom of freedom - has passed into evidence, and the moral composition of the soul - into statics, which can be changed by the prayer of the Church, including private prayers. …After death, unrepentant sinners will be determined by their own sin...”
Based on the patristic teaching about the human will, Arch. Raphael (Karelin) shows that in the theory of repentance in hell, two different concepts are confused: “the earthly life of a sinner and his posthumous fate, which depends not on his desire, but on his sins. In fact, the sinner says “yes” or “no” to temptations in his earthly life. Here the gnomic will makes a choice between good and evil, truth and lies, virtue and sin, grace and passions, God and Satan. Here, free human will is in a state of constant possibility of choosing motives and decisions, but after death, another process begins - the disclosure of the moral potential that a person has collected. Here the sinner can only be helped by outside force - the power of prayers and alms, and then only on condition of faith in Jesus Christ, repentance for sins and good deeds that he managed to accomplish before death.”
(Arch. Rafail (Karelin). On modern neo-gnosticism).
All the holy fathers say that saving repentance for us is possible only in this life. Beyond the grave there is no longer repentance; there the soul of an unrepentant sinner cannot perceive the saving influence of grace.
Yes, St. right John of Kronstadt writes:
Who does not know how difficult it is without the special grace of God for a sinner to turn from his beloved path of sin to the path of virtue... If not for the grace of God, which sinner would turn to God, since the property of sin is to darken us, to bind us hand and foot. But the time and place for the action of grace is only here: after death, only the prayers of the Church can act on repentant sinners, on those who have acceptance in their souls, the light of good deeds, carried away by them from this life, to which grace can be grafted God's or the grace-filled prayers of the Church.
Blessed Theophylact(Archbishop of Bulgaria) in interpretation of the words of Holy Scripture:
“The king came in to see those reclining, and saw a man there, not dressed in wedding clothes, and said to him: friend! How did you come here not wearing wedding clothes? He was silent. Then the king said to the servants: having tied his hands and feet, take him and throw him into outer darkness: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth; For many are called, but few are chosen” writes:
Entry into the wedding feast occurs without distinction: we are all called, good and evil, only by grace. But then life is subject to a test, which the king carries out carefully, and the lives of many turn out to be desecrated. Let us tremble, brothers, when we think that for anyone whose life is not pure, faith is useless. Such a one is not only cast out from the bridal chamber, but also sent into the fire. Who is this one who wears defiled clothing? This is the one who has not put on the clothing of mercy, kindness and brotherly love. There are many who, deluding themselves with vain hopes, think of receiving the Kingdom of Heaven and, thinking highly of themselves, count themselves among the elect. By interrogating an unworthy person, the Lord shows, firstly, that he is humane and fair, and secondly, that we should not condemn anyone, even if someone has obviously sinned, unless he is openly exposed in court. Further, the Lord says to the servants, the punishing angels: “bind his hands and feet,” that is, the soul’s ability to act. In the present century we can act and act one way or another, but in the future our spiritual powers will be bound, and we will not be able to do any good to atone for sins; “Then there will be gnashing of teeth” - this is fruitless repentance
When using the site materials reference to the source is required
The modernists, who have rallied around the anti-God portal “Orthodoxy and Peace,” are again filling people’s minds with the heresy of Origen, not only condemned by the fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, but also anathematized every year in our Orthodox churches. This time this spiritual poison spread through the priest Sergius Kruglov.
Father Sergius, without being embarrassed or afraid of anyone, called in his article “Didn’t God know that Judas would betray?” Origen to the wise: “But more important is the mystery of the Church, which originated, according to the wise Origen, on Calvary through the flow of blood and water.” The Fathers of the Church had a different opinion about this ancient heretic. In the protocols of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Origen is called a mad interpreter of Hellenic teachings and wicked. In addition, it is interesting that one person saw Origen in hell - this is stated in the “Spiritual Meadow” of Blessed John Moschus, in the 26th chapter.
At the same time, it must be said that there is nothing surprising in the behavior of Father Sergius Kruglov - Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) has long said that “for modernists, Origen is an uncanonized saint.”
I am already silent about the fact that the Church was born not on Calvary, but on the day of Pentecost, that is, on the Day of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles. And this is not my opinion, but the conciliar opinion of the Church. And according to the Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow, everything that contradicts the teachings of the Church, that is, its conciliar opinion, is heresy.
Next, priest Sergius broadcasts Origen’s heresy about universal salvation. But here he is already afraid of someone - either the hierarchy, or the Orthodox, and therefore makes it a hint. “Modernists, when expressing their thoughts, try not to reveal them completely, so as not to betray their anti-Orthodox essence. Therefore, modernists feel that their conceptual views are fragmentary and incomplete,” Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) once said.
This is how Father Sergius Kruglov hints at universal salvation, speaking about Christ: “He spread out his hands on the cross to accept everyone in them. And a traitor as well (and which of us, in all conscience, in one or another difficult moment of our weak life is not a traitor to Christ, His truth and His love?..). Everyone who rushed even an iota (whether he was able or not is another matter) - to come to Him.”
The priest writes that Christ spread his arms on the Cross to “receive them all.” The liturgical texts of the Sunday Octoechos, which were compiled by the holy fathers at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, speak of the crucifixion of Christ in other words and in a different way. For example: “You stretched out your hand on the cross, calling out my corruptible body from the earth.” Which means: I stretched out my hands on the Cross to call my corruptible body from the earth. That is, to call me, to give me a chance for salvation, but salvation itself is not guaranteed here. Or here’s another quote: “You stretched out your hand, our Savior, on the tree, calling all to yourself, as the Lover of Mankind.” It says here that Christ stretched out his palms on the Cross, calling people to Himself, but salvation is not guaranteed here either.
And Father Sergius seems to make a slight lexical distortion, but this slight distortion completely changes the meaning. According to its text, Christ does not call people, but accepts them, that is, actually introduces them into the Kingdom of Heaven.
The following phrases reinforce the heretical meaning of the modernist priest’s statement. The next phrase is that Christ accepts even a traitor, that is, Judas, who by that time had already committed suicide. Although, according to the teachings of the Church, not a single suicide will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and even more so Judas will not enter there - he is generally depicted in paintings of the Last Judgment on the knees of Satan.
And then in the “Pravmir” text there is a phrase where the modernist heresy about universal salvation is already clearly visible: that Christ accepts “everyone who rushed even one iota (whether he was able or not is another matter) - to come to Him.” Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) said about the modernists: “They teach about all-salvation already predetermined by God, that is, inevitable. At the same time, they not only repeat and vary Origen’s apokatastasis, but in some cases go much further. If for Origen the sinner must undergo purifying suffering on earth, then some modernists believe that it is enough for a sinner to wish salvation, and he will be saved" So Father Sergius claims that a sinner only has to rush to Christ (that is, desire salvation), and Christ will save him. Although in fact many stories are known when ascetics eradicated all passions in themselves, God gave them the gifts of healing and insight, and then these ascetics fell into pride, fell and went forever to hell.
Before this, the nun Evgenia (Senchukova) promoted Origen’s heresy about universal salvation in Pravmir with hints (my article about this is located).
Christ repeatedly said that sinners will suffer forever. For example, this is what He said about the results of the Last Judgment: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25). And the fathers, famous for their miracles and canonized as saints, said the same thing. For example, St. Anthony the Great wrote: “The treacherous one will be given over to eternal execution.”
But for some reason modernists do not believe either the Gospel or the writings of the holy fathers. And, by the way, the same Venerable Anthony the Great said how disbelief in the Holy Scripture ends (and, as you know, the Gospel also applies to it): “My brothers, beware of not believing the words of the Holy Scripture, so as not to anger your Creator. He who does not have true faith prepares himself as food for worms, which never die, slaughters himself as a sacrifice to the prince of darkness and is far from eternal life and from God.”
Every year on the Week of the Triumph of Orthodoxy in our churches, among other anathemas, an anathema is proclaimed to the adherents of Origen’s heresy about universal salvation: “To those who reject the immortality of the soul, the end of the age, future judgment and eternal reward for virtues in heaven, and condemnation for sins: anathema.”
Alla Tuchkova, journalist
Featured Posts from This Journal
The behavior of nun Evgenia (Senchukova) is becoming increasingly suspiciousAs I understand it, the press secretary of the Yakut diocese, nun Evgenia (Senchukova), adheres to the heresy of Origen, condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.…
The author of “Pravmira” is a student of the anathematized Theodore of Mopsuet in the 6th centuryThe Orthodoxy and Peace portal has a very prolific author, Olga Shulcheva-Jarman. Her numerous texts are teeming with not only...
Modernists seek to abolish the sacrament of confession in the Russian Orthodox ChurchThe portal “Orthodoxy and Peace” hits the same point again and again - it publishes articles about the need to separate the sacrament of repentance from...
People in Russia are being turned into a herd of sheepThe Russians lived to see a new, terrible persecution of Christians. But this is a very crafty, subtle persecution. It’s scary because getting rid of the placed...
Isn't it time to excommunicate Anna Danilova from the Church?The other day it became clear why the portal “Orthodoxy and Peace” began to fight posts with such persistence - it turns out that the main one...
(~185–~254)
Childhood and adolescence
Origen was born into a pious Christian family, presumably in 185 or 186, in Egypt, in Alexandria. Origen's father, the grammarian Leonidas, died for his belief in the persecution of the North when his son was not yet seventeen years old.
From childhood, Origen stood out for his academic success and high self-discipline. Both natural talents and good parental upbringing had an impact. Along with general education subjects, he studied the Holy Scriptures especially carefully, memorizing certain passages by heart. At the same time, Origen was not content with a superficial perception of the text, but sought to comprehend the depth of the content, asking his father serious questions that were not childish, which put him in a difficult position. It happened that Leonid told his son to be content with a simple, obvious meaning, meanwhile, in the depths of his heart, of course, he rejoiced at his curiosity and thanked God.
From a young age, Origen attended classes at the Alexandria Catechetical School, glorified by the works of Panten and Clement.
After his father was taken into custody during the persecution of the Church, Origen became inflamed with even greater zeal for the Lord. The mother, knowing how much her son neglected danger, more than once begged him to take pity on her maternal feelings. It happened that she hid clothes from him, trying to keep them to herself. Moved by a fiery impulse, Origen wrote to his father, urging him not to renounce his thoughts out of fear for his family.
After Leonid suffered martyrdom, the family's property was confiscated, leaving her without a livelihood. During this period, Origen found shelter with a noble woman who sympathized with him. Everything would be fine, but this woman showed attention to heretics. Origen shunned the prayer meetings held in her house and after some time left it.
After the death of his father, Origen continued to improve his educational level. And soon he began teaching grammar privately. In this way he earned money to support his orphaned family.
Origen's activities as a Christian teacher
When, as a result of persecution, the Alexandrian Catechetical School lost its leader, many, driven by the desire to comprehend the truths of Christian doctrine, began to turn to Origen for help.
The young teacher's fame grew every day. In addition to his education, his behavior also contributed to this: he, not fearing the threats of idolaters, as if challenging them, regularly visited Christian prisoners, was present when the sentences were announced, and courageously accompanied them to the places of execution. The pagans more than once tried to organize attacks on the meetings organized around Origen, and he was forced to change the places of such meetings.
Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria, appreciating the zeal and abilities of the young teacher, officially called him and offered him the position of head of the Catechetical School in Alexandria.
Origen accepted the offer. He sold the books he had accumulated with great difficulty. The man who acquired them began to pay him four ovols daily, which at that time was the wage of an ordinary day laborer. A strict ascetic life allowed him to be content with such a small amount.
According to legend, Origen subjected himself to voluntary castration. It is believed that he decided to take this difficult step by literally taking the words of the Redeemer about eunuchs. Meanwhile, there is reason to believe that he did this in order to ward off possible suspicions of illicit relationships with women who were part of his circle of students.
Around 211-212, Origen, driven by a good desire to see the “most ancient Church,” went to Rome, and upon returning from this trip he again devoted himself to teaching.
At some point, due to the large number of people announced, he was forced to take on an assistant. The choice fell on Herakles, brother of Plutarch, who accepted death for Christ. Since then, Herakles taught primary knowledge to beginners, and Origen himself taught a more prepared audience.
Over time, Origen's fame began to attract philosophers and even heretics who wanted to know his opinion on this or that issue.
Around 212 or 213, God's Providence brought Origen and Ambrose together. Before they met, he was an adherent of one of the Gnostic sects. Origen managed to find the right words and turn him to Light and Truth. Soon a partnership began between them. By mutual agreement, he organized the recording of Origen’s speeches and assumed the material costs. At the same time, he received the right to dispose of the compiled manuscripts. In addition to cursive writers, he kept scribes who replicated texts for distribution.
Around 214, Origen, with the blessing of Bishop Demetrius, undertook a trip to Arabia, where he was invited by the local prefect. He stayed in Arabia for a relatively short time.
Origen's activities in Palestine
After popular unrest broke out in Alexandria, which was suppressed by the authorities, the city was plundered by soldiers, and then the newcomers were expelled from it. , being an Antiochian and forced to leave Alexandria, he moved to Caesarea in Palestine. During this period, Origen also moved to Caesarea.
Here he established relations with the clergy, including the Bishop of Caesarea, Theoctistus. Due to respect and trust, Origen, as a Christian teacher, was given the opportunity to preach publicly in the Church. Having learned about this, Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria was indignant. In his message to the local church leadership, he insisted that it was not appropriate for a layman to preach in the presence of bishops. In their response message, the bishops objected and reminded Demetrius that even the apostles attracted people from the people who were capable of preaching.
Soon Bishop Demetrius, needing Origen as a teacher, sent people for him and demanded his immediate return. Origen, obeying the will of the bishop, returned to Alexandria.
A few years later (probably around 230), Origen was sent by Bishop Demetrius to Greece, with instructions on church affairs. During this period, another event occurred that caused indignation in Demetrius.
Either out of old memory, or due to some other reasons, Origen laid out his route through Palestine and stayed there. Bishops Alexander and Theoktist gave him a warm, hospitable welcome. Moreover, remembering past misunderstandings associated with Origen’s preaching (as a layman), he was ordained a priest.
Bishop Demetrius, who was initially amazed at Origen's decision to subject himself to emasculation, and as if he did not see anything contrary to piety in this, suddenly spoke of this as a canonical obstacle to the priesthood.
There is reason to believe that Demetrius felt banal envy towards Origen. In 231 he initiated the convening of the Council. Egyptian bishops and Alexandrian priests were present at the Council. The ruling they made regarding Origen was quite harsh: he was removed from teaching and prohibited from living in Alexandria. The next Council, convened a few months later, declared the ordination of Origen to the presbyter illegal.
Subsequently, Origen lived and worked in Palestine under the patronage of friends. After the death of Demetrius, Herakles took over the See of Alexandria, and Origen expected a change in attitude towards him, but his expectations did not come true.
The Theological School founded by Origen in Caesarea soon became one of the centers of education. Origen's fame even reached the imperial court. Emperor Alexander's mother, Mammea, invited him to her place, wanting to listen to his speech.
The last period of Origen's life was full of preaching and literary activity.
During the next persecution against the Church, launched during the reign of Decius, Origen was captured and imprisoned. He had to experience humiliation and torture for Christ. A chain was placed around his neck, and his legs were stretched on a special tool for many days. In addition, Origen was threatened with burning. He survived and even gained freedom, but the consequences of the torment were so painful that he died. This happened in 253 or 254.
Scientific and writing activities
Despite his lifetime respect, ascetic life, and confession, Origen was not counted among the holy fathers of the Church. This is due to his deviation from the purity of the doctrine on a number of essential issues relating to the doctrine of Holy Trinity, the creation of the world, the Face of the Lord Jesus Christ, the future fate of sinners. Meanwhile, he is recognized as one of the outstanding and most fruitful church writers.
Among the priority areas of Origen’s scientific and theological creativity was the study of the Holy Scriptures. In this regard, Origen even learned Hebrew. The fruit of his many years of research was the fundamental work “Exaples” (Hexaples), containing a set of biblical texts presented both in Hebrew and in various translations. Unfortunately, this work has not reached our days.
From the explanations of the Books of Scripture we have reached individual fragments essays: ,
Origen of Alexandria, Christian philosopher and defender of the faith of the 3rd century, is a man of very interesting destiny. Anathematized 300 years after his death, and in extremely harsh terms, he was at the same time a Christian martyr, and even the Fathers of the Church were among his disciples! What was he so guilty of? What is the essence of the heresy that is often called by the name of its “author” - Origenism?
Probably the most famous accusation that can be heard against Origen is the doctrine of apokatastasis, that is, the salvation of all rational beings, which we have already written about earlier. However, the “heretical” status of this teaching is still questioned by authoritative church authors. Another thing is important - apokatastasis was only a particular moment of the integral system of the Alexandrian teacher. But all of it, indeed, had little in common with church orthodoxy.
Origen was both lucky and very unlucky: he was a pioneer. Moreover, he is a pioneer of thought, and this is especially dangerous. As a pioneer, he was admired during his life and after death, called the greatest Christian theologian since the time of the apostles, his system of theological concepts, amazingly accurate and successful, was used by the Fathers of the Church, his approach to the interpretation of Holy Scripture became classical... But many of Origen’s answers and theological insights turned out to be not at all the same as those that crystallized at the Councils of the Church, as a result of long reflections, disputes and revelations. There is nothing surprising here: as they say, one head, even a very smart one, is good, but two are better. And especially not two, but hundreds and thousands, and also far from stupid.
Another thing is offensive: a man who sincerely and unusually talentedly defended the Christian faith all his life was anathematized after his death. Emperor Justinian the Great even claimed that Origen deliberately penetrated inside the church fence in order to sow opinions and teachings alien to Christianity there. So there have been fighters against the “Masonic conspiracy” (based on the realities of the 6th century, when the troubled emperor lived - with the Hellenic one) at all times! Of course, such a “theory” does not stand up to any criticism - the great Alexandrian proved not only with life, but also with death his right to be called a Christian and a faithful son of the Church.
Even in his youth, when his father, Leonidas, was arrested and led to death for his Christian faith, Origen wanted to go and be executed with his father. But the mother, knowing her son’s extraordinary shyness, hid all the clothes she had in the house, and the young man did not dare to go out naked. Much later, Origen had to undergo moral and physical suffering that was no less terrible. According to the imperial laws of that time, persons who were already Christians were not touched, but if someone converted to Christianity from the state pagan cult, death awaited him.
Origen could not help but preach his faith, which, in his conviction, opened up for people the possibility of salvation and life with God. But this preaching often resulted in the execution of disciples if they were exposed by the imperial authorities. At the end of Origen's life, the laws changed, and the already elderly man was captured and subjected to severe torture. Origen was released, but his health was irreversibly damaged, and he soon died. Such a life and such a death do not fit well with the image of a conscious enemy of Christianity and the Church.
It must be said that the great Alexandrian never insisted on the indisputable truth of his theological assumptions. This distinguishes him favorably from most heresiarchs, who stood out for their fanaticism and intolerance to other opinions. Unfortunately, in the 6th century, Origen's cautious remarks were not taken into account.
Probably, Origen’s main problem, which led to the anathemas of the Council, was that the Alexandrian teacher was a hostage to a philosophical system that he tried to combine with Christianity. In the language of the Gospel, he tried to pour the “new wine” of Christianity into the “old wineskins” of his previous ideas. Sometimes even funny incidents arose from this. For example, the idea that the bodies that people will receive in paradise after the resurrection will be... spherical in shape! By the way, Origen was also reminded of this little detail, highlighting it as a separate item in the list of anathemas. But within the framework of the philosophical system that Origen adhered to, the ball was an ideal form; Well, in heaven, of course, everything will be perfect, including the shape.
The very idea of infinity caused Origen rejection - such a view was also dictated more by philosophical premises than by common sense. As a result, the image of God in Origen’s understanding turned out to be greatly distorted: “One must think that the Power of God is limited; and one should not, under the pretext of piety, remove its circular outline. If the Power of God were limitless, it would of necessity not conceive of itself, for it is limitless by nature its immensity."
But, perhaps, the main thing that made Origen’s picture of the world incompatible with the Christian one was the idea of the cyclical nature of the world. From the true biblical thesis that God is the Creator of our world, Origen concludes that being the Creator is an integral, eternal property of God, expressing the very essence of His nature. That is, Origen subordinated God to the principle of creativity: without this, God is no longer God. In the works of other Church Fathers there is a very important idea that God is in no way dependent on our world, that He was not at all “obliged” to create this world, and the creation of the world was an entirely voluntary, unconditional act. Unfortunately, in Origen's system there is a dependence of God on certain philosophical principles.
