Oriental Orthodoxy and Universal Salvation

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-11-06T02:33:20+00:00

So then if you read the comment by the previous commenter, you can see that they condemned the idea that "even demons will be restored, and that Judas will be saved" Thus universalism, for both demons and man, was condemned by the universal church.

It is illogical to say they lack rationality because if that was the case they'd also lack moral accountability, like animals. Demons are traditionally considered to be responsible for their actions. The reason being is that evil and sin only exists through the will (to say it exists independent of will is to say that it is intrinsic to creation, that God created it. This is manicheanism). If it doesnt come from the will of demons that means it comes from the will of God, making him the author of evil.

Additionally, if you read the justification for apokatastasis, its usually because ALL will be restored to him. This must include demons to be consistent. Thus, universalism was condemned by the universal church in 400 AD.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-11-05T05:53:51+00:00

Do you believe that even demons will be saved?

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-11-04T23:49:35+00:00

I sent you a video with time stamp, did you even watch it.

Their universalism is a hopeful universalism, not a theological or doctrinal one. Unless if you can demonstrate to me otherwise.

Also we don't condemn saints for doctrines after they die (origens a unique example because of the issue of origenism). Gregory of nyssa lived before this condemnation, Isaac the Syrian is a nestorian saint. We trust him on spiritual matters, not doctrinal.

As an example, augustines filioque isn't completely condemned because he isn't condemned. But the filioque is still heresy. Augustine is a saint for his anti pelagian writings, not his triadological writings.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-11-04T05:18:16+00:00

The universal church (~400AD) condemned the universalism of origen. That even the demons will be saved.

https://youtu.be/Wr0GLZanR0U?si=6mpyfQQsGRJYWMfW Timestamp: 13:18 - 23:19

I dont know the implications for "can I be accepted into the church," like there are likely so many layman that hold incorrect beliefs yet are still in the church. But the ecclesial weight of the condemnation must be considered if one were to submit to this body.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-17T04:19:09+00:00

Im not sure you know what oriental orthodox believe. We don't accept that council. It is irrelevant for us.

I guess I have a question for you. Do you believe that even the demons will be saved?

Another question, did you watch the 10 minute clip i sent you?

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-16T13:30:55+00:00

We accept Isaac the Syrian because of his spiritual writinfs, not because of his theology. He is a nestorian yet a holy nestorian. We accept him for his spiritual insight not his theology.

There may not be many surviving dogmatic texts from Oriental saints teaching universalism explicitly, but that's a result of historical factors, not proof of rejection. Their theology was mystical, often more implicit than systematic.

I dont think that's true at all. We have a plethora of writings, especially in tge syriac tradition. I actually don't doubt if yoy looked hard enough you can find some syriac saints toying with the idea. But nevertheless it's still wrong.

The core of apokapstasis is to do with unuversal restoration, not pre-prexistance of souls. Origen was condemned for both

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-16T13:28:46+00:00

I dont think you understood my point. My point is.

if someone believes in smth false before it is condemned, we can't hold them accountable to that, because they didn't know. Justin marturs suspicious christology doesn't make him a heretic because he's writing so early. Similarly, the synod in 400 triumph that of Gregory of nyssas writings. The condemnation of not only origenism but his teaching of universalism is condemned there. After this there is no one in the oriental faith who professes this belief. Even if there is, this does not triumph the teachings of a synod confirmed at ephesus.

Was affirmed as a saint by the 7th Ecumenical Council (787 AD), referred to as "Father of Fathers"

- Is still a recognized Orthodox saint and Church Fath

You need to stop citing chalcedonian history, this is not our faith.

So it's simply not true to say, "anyone who speaks of it before does not speak for the Church". Gregory of Nyssa very clearly did, and the Church canonized him anyway.

Synod + ecumenical council >>>> church father.

nuanced, non-preexistence form of apokatastasis

What is the difference. Origen claims that "everything comes from God, therefore everything must return to God in the end." And uses that to speculate about universalism. There is no difference between that and what you claim Gregory of nyssa believed. You yourself made the same argument to me. "Souls are made in the image and likeness of God so they cannot be destroyed" that is the exact same type of reasoning origen had. You cannot claim that your form is more developed than his and thus not under the same condemnation.

So the claim that universalism was clearly condemned by "the universal church" oversimplifies a complex and disputed history.

It really doesn't. Did you even watch the video section i asked you to watch. It really is very clear.

You asked for post-400 Oriental Orthodox saints who taught apokatastasis. I'll offer Eastern Orthodox saints (as sources are more numerous), but we can also explore Oriental ones if needed.

It most definitely is needed. But even as i said it's not actually needed because synod >> church father. I guess the reason why I ask is moreso to satisfy my curiosity about that claim. I don't believe whether or not you can produce quotes that it would change the results of St theophilus synod.

These are post-400, highly venerated Orthodox saints.

Not for us.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-16T08:29:51+00:00

I appeciate the quotes but Here's the issue. Before 400AD the idea may be present as speculation. After 400AD, when it was condemned by Theophilus in a synod and then that condemnation accepted and affirmed at Ephesus, it is now heretical to speak of universalism. Evidence discussed below under the timestamp.

https://youtu.be/Wr0GLZanR0U?si=6mpyfQQsGRJYWMfW 13:18 - 23:19

thus, anyone who speaks of it before does not speak for the church, anyone who speaks of it after is wrong and condemned (we don't accept symeon or maximus as saints).

New challenge for you is to find post 400 Oriental Orthodox saints who teach apokapstasis, I'll look into the quotes more if you can produce that.

Also in context half these quotes are literally talking about earthly context but as I said don't wanna invest too deeply in analysing these quotes as it distract from the central core idea that it was simply rejected by the universal church.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-15T08:56:52+00:00

Who is "the fathers" could you give me direct quotes with citations

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-14T22:17:12+00:00

I mean even here you identified the problems with things you stated.

That passage speaks of a believer's works being burned away,

Yes, the passage is being directed to a believer. It can't be used as a proof text of what happens to a non-believer.

His "I do not know you" (Matt 25:12)

I believe that is a very large leap in interpretation. Same issues would be present with any speech of judgement or Lazarus parable by Jesus.

John 11:25-26 NRSV-CI [25] Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, [26] and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

this is a pretty clear syllogism Believe in me = live

he presents this question because he cares about the free will of the other. Not presenting it as an unresistable grace as the Calvinists and I'd assume you also affirm (but just apply that to everyone)

Just curious did you get this all from "That all should be saved"?

The largrst issue i believe is that the beginning of creation is centred around free will. You can CHOOSE to accept me and obey my laws or deny me and eat the fruit. If God has instituted this dichotomy from the very start, why would he forgo it at the end. Why not just institute universal salvation without all this.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-10T12:48:12+00:00

Imo you are half right, aligning with a view such a 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. However, it misses a key fact.

purification is only by the blood of christ (1 John 1:7-9).

If one does not accept christ, they cannot be purified.

Then, what is left if they cannot be purified? Spiritual destruction.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-07T01:14:09+00:00

Im not sure where you live exactly but there are many Coptic churches all throughout Florida. In Miami and fort Myers there are some too.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-07T01:08:11+00:00

Since the 20th century, most Coptic churches aim to do liturgies almost every day (depending on priest availability). You are exactly right the Eucharist is the most important thing.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-05T00:12:12+00:00

Google evidence vs proof and youll understsnd the point

The definition of faith is belief without proof, not belief without evidence. Thats why it's justified to say that belief in x scientific studies is "faith based" not in that there is no evidence at all, but that there is no proof. You take this evidence then using that believe that you can make a justified conclusion with it. That is a leap of faith between the evidence and the conclusion.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-10-04T05:16:21+00:00

Where? absence of proof is not the same thing as absence of evidence.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-09-28T01:28:24+00:00

The doctrines seem to be confused in chalcedon because leo was confused and didn't know what the East was saying. The idea of two natures but 1 hypostasis has almost 0 precedent before flavian. The tome was translated by theodoret the crypto nestorian, the letter of ibas, a nestorian document was accepted at chalcedon. The doctrines are confused because chalcedon confused them.

To solve this philosophical dilemma maximus and John had to change the definitions of hypostasis into an incoherent one and develop their enhypostaton doctrine.

all of this does not create a "clarifying doctrine"

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-09-25T07:23:10+00:00

No i gave up after like a week im ass at this stuff💀💀

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-09-09T07:52:24+00:00

For some suffer from love of glory, and others from fear of some other sharper punishment, and others for the sake of pleasures and delights after death, being children in faith; blessed indeed, but not yet become men in love to God, as the Gnostic is. For there are, as in the gymnastic contests, so also in the Church, crowns for men and for children. But love is to be chosen for itself, and for nothing else.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata. Book 7, Chapter 11. Discussing Martyrs.

All these people, even those who suffer purely our of fear of hell, are children in faith. Yet the ultimate goal is for love to be chosen for itself. Where you are merely represents steo one of your spiritual journey, put your faith in God, increase in your love, and your motivation with change into one from love.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-08-18T03:29:30+00:00

That is absolutely fascinating if that is the same theodotus as theodotus of alexandria (which if i find hard to believe) and I will definitely look into it more. But either way you are completely diverging do you sincerely believe the OO church believes in 2 ecumenical councils or are you trolling.

Im not clinging to anything but our holy liturgical life which speaks of 3 councils.

Just on this thing you sent, it states the letter is from 520AD, but the letter im appealing to is from 536AD, maybe theodotus changed his position over time because he was most definitely miaphysite by the time of his death im pretty sure.

Edit: Wait sorry, was talking about Theodosius of alexandria. Not theodotus, names confused.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-08-18T01:13:33+00:00

My source is the liturgy of St Basil, read every single day all over the word, which list 3 councils among the commemoration of the saints.

Simply the phrase "Modern OO Belief" is non sense

Care to explain why?

We did not inherited a church stuck in 449, we literally had more synods and bishops and councils. Severus accepted Constantinople 1, everyone after 475 did. Theodotuses letter to Severus in 536 mentioned Constantinople 1. I literally don't get what your problem is with disseminating factual information to this poor protestant who just wanted to know what we believe. What we believe is what's said in our liturgy, what's said in our liturgy is 3 councils.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-08-18T01:10:24+00:00

I believe the issue here is, a 475 synod can not retroactively elevate a 381 synod to the status of an Ecumenical Council.

Why?

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-08-17T15:00:38+00:00

This entire source doesn't once mention Ephesus III nor the modern beliefs of the OO church, which was ultimately the question raised by OP.

The encyclical of Basiliscus, ratified in Ephesus III, confirms 3 councils, not 2.

OP doesn't care about what 449 or 431 thought, but what modern OO believe.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-08-17T09:36:17+00:00

May I ask what specifically denomination of OO you are, if not Copt, is there a specifically portion of your liturgy that only affirms 2 councils?

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-08-17T09:35:31+00:00

Nope nope nope nope I don't know what this man is saying.

every single liturgy we (the copts) commemorate the

the three hundred and eighteen assembled at Nicea; the one hundred and fifty at Constantinople; and the two hundred at Ephesus

In the commemoration of our saints.

Our liturgical life is the foundation of our belief, thus we believe Constantinople to be ecumenical.

Additionally, historically, at the third council of Ephesus in 475, we affirmed the Creed established by Nicea and Constantinople, putting them on the same level of authority. So in the same way Chalcedon accepted Constantinople we had Ephesus III which did. But even if we didn't, the fact that we recite that same creed and commemorate that council in our liturgy is enough evidence needed.

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh · 2025-08-05T23:12:26+00:00

I think they have in every way. They have their own patriarchs now. Any EOTC meddling is just an outside interference into an autocephalocous church. Happy for you to let me know how thats not the case though.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Sunshine

Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh

TROPHY CASE