Origen: Saint or Heretic

Universalism is a hot topic in Protestant circles. The authority of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the anathemas against Origen are invoked to condemn the teaching as heretical.

Protestants strangely deem Universalism heretical based on a council that they don't recognize as authoritative. Follow the logic: A non-authoritative council, made up of heretics according to Protestants, gets to decide who the heretic is.

But since the Fifth Ecumenical Council is referenced, let's take a closer look.

"I am determined to avoid every assembly of bishops. I have never seen a single instance in which a synod did any good. Strife and ambition dominate them to an incredible degree. From councils and synods I will keep myself at a distance, for I have experienced that most of them, to speak with moderation, are not worth much. I will not sit in the seat of synods, while geese and cranes confused wrangle. Discord is there, and shameful things, hidden before, are gathered into one meeting place of rivals." – Gregory Nazianzus (Letter to Procopius)

The main goal of the council was not to condemn Origen, but to confirm the condemnation issued by edict in 551 by the Emperor Justinian against the Three Chapters. The “Three Chapters” were propositions anathematizing: 1. The person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 2. The writings of Theodoret against Cyril of Alexandria. 3. The letter of Ibas to Maris.

Origen and an Origenist form of apokatastasis were condemned at the local Synod of Constantinople (543). This condemnation was endorsed in 553 by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Origen was named alongside a list of heretics denounced in Canon 11: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books...let him be anathema."

The Canon does not define which of Origen's teachings are heretical. He was listed as a heretic, but that does not prove that the bishops condemned all forms of Universal Salvation. Nevertheless a form of apokatastasis was condemned.

Canon 11 anathematized Origen's "heretical books". And who knows if this refers to all of Origen's books as heretical, or if it only refers to certain heretical books of his.

The anathemas

Justinian issued his anathemas against Origen before the Council. The last of those anathemas is as follows:

"If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema."

The first of the Council's anathemas states:

"If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema." The twelfth of the Council's anathemas states: "If anyone says that the heavenly powers, all human beings, the devil, and the spirits of wickedness will be united to God the Word in just the same way as the mind they call Christ, which is in the form of God and emptied itself, as they assert, and that the kingdom of Christ will have an end, let him be anathema."

David Bentley Hart wrote in his article "Saint Origen" on First Things: "I am not entirely certain why anti-universalists cling to them (the anathemas) so pertinaciously, since they do not even really condemn universalism as such at all. The first anathema speaks of the idea of a “monstrous restoration” (apokatastasis), but only the version of that idea that logically follows from a particular “fabulous” account of the soul’s preexistence. And the succeeding anathemas fill in the details of the tale: an undifferentiated substantial unity of all rational natures at the beginning and then, identically, at the end; the spherical shape of resurrected bodies (Christ’s included); christological speculations that more parody than promote Origen’s beliefs; caricatures of ­Origen’s views of angels and demons; and so on."

So Universal Salvation may not have been condemned per se, but a "monstrous" restitution of all, including the devil and demons, was condemned based on the soul's pre-existence.

On the other hand we could flip the argument and say that the belief in the pre-existence of souls was only condemned in connection with the belief in apokatastasis. So we should not let Origen off the hook so easily.

Earlier local synods condemned Origen. The Synod of Alexandria condemned eight teachings allegedly found in Origen's book 'On First Principles,' although his doctrine on 'ultimate reconciliation' was not named. Origen clearly taught Christian Universalism in his book, but he was rather condemned for the other heretical things he supposedly taught.

The councils that followed in Jerusalem and Cyprus, under the leadership of St Epiphanius, did not mention apokatastasis either.

"Jerome, Theophilus, and Epiphanius literally scrape together every possible charge against Origen, but never allude to his teaching of the larger hope as heretical." – Thomas Allin (Christ Triumphant, 1905, p. 178).

Other Universalists

St Gregory of Nyssa was the final editor of the Nicene Creed. He was a Universalist greatly influenced by Origen. The Seventh Ecumenical Council named him "The Father of Fathers." Gregory was canonized, and stands high on the roll of eminent saints. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware wrote: "He (St Gregory of Nyssa) has never been anathematized for this, either in 553 or in more recent times. In expressing his hope that all will be saved, Gregory of Nyssa is fully as confident as Origen. His words recall the great affirmation of Paul, “and thus God will be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). “When, through these long and circuitous methods,” writes Gregory, “the wickedness which is now mingled and consolidated with our nature has been finally expelled from it, and when all those things that are now sunk down in evil are restored to their original state, there will ascend from the entire creation a united hymn of thanksgiving... All this is contained in the great mystery of the Divine Incarnation." This final restoration, Gregory clearly states, will embrace even the devil. Despite this bold claim, Gregory of Nyssa has never been condemned as a heretic, but on the contrary he is honored as a saint, Why should this be so? Perhaps he escaped reprobation because he was Basil’s brother. Yet if he was treated differently from his master Origen, perhaps it was because, while retaining Origen’s hope in the eventual triumph of good over evil, he abandoned the notion of preexistence and so avoided the circularity of the Origenist scheme. Whatever the explanation, the fact that Gregory has not been anathematized is certainly significant. It suggests that, if dissociated from speculations about a precosmic fall, a carefully qualified expression of universal hope is acceptable, even within the bounds of strict orthodoxy." (Dare We Hope For the Salvation of All, ch. 4).

There's also a number of other universalist church fathers that were never censured. For example Diodore of Tarsus, an opponent of Origen's allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. Diodore attended the First Council of Constantinople (AD 381) together with Gregory. This council was chaired by the hopeful universalist, St Gregory of Nazianzus. Gregory Nyssen and Diodore were assigned by Emperor Theodosius as guardians of the Nicene faith.

The Council of Nicea, AD 325, had in fact Origen's apologist, Eusebius, as an active member. He was a prominent Universalist. Eusebius defended Origen against nine charges that had been brought against his views (universalism was not one of them). Marcellus of Ancyra, also a Universalist, played a big role together with Eusebius in condemning Arianism.

Universalism: A widespread doctrine

At this time the universalist position was quiet prominent in Asia Minor. Jerome said, “I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its King, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures.”

St Gregory Thaumaturgus, St Pampilius, Methodius of Olympus (a critic or Origen), Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, Diodore of Tarsus, St Macrina the Younger, St Gregory of Nyssa and St Gregory the Theologian were all at the very least hopeful universalists.

Universalism was also popular in Alexandria. St Basil said in his De Asceticis, "The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.” Alexandria was the home of universalists such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St Dionysius of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, Theognotus, Pierius, and St Anthony the Great.

And St Augustine, stated that the opponents of the eternal torment view in the West were "indeed very many".

Methodius attacked Origen's views of creation, the resurrection, and pre-existence of souls, but never universalism. Marcellus of Ancyra, a Universalist, opposed Origen's views on the Trinity, but of course not universalism. Epiphanius condemned Origen's belief in the salvation of the devil, but not the salvation of all human beings. Jerome and Theophilus likewise attacked Origen's views of the devil's redemption, but not Universal Salvation per se.

With the exception of Augustine, the belief in the Ultimate Reconciliation of all human beings was not labeled a heresy until 500 some years after Christ.

Emperor Justinian

In AD 543 Justinian sent an edict to St Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople, commanding him to assemble the home synod and condemn Origen based on extracts from Origen's On First Principles. In his edict he affirmed the doctrine of eternal conscious torment:

"The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked." Justinian used the word 'ateleutetos' to express the endlessness of the final punishment. The clarification was necessary, given that Origen happily taught “aionios punishment” as the Bible does. Origen among many other church fathers, did not believe that the "aionios punishment" described in the Bible meant an "everlasting punishment".

So Justinian appended nine anathemas:

When you read the anathemas, you wonder if the "real Origen" was condemned. Origen definitely did not teach everything that was written in the anathemas. He did not teach that Christ will be crucified again for demons. That humans will be raised in spherical shape. That God's power is restricted etc.

Thus the anathemas may not be a condemnation of the real Origen but rather of "Origenism." The anathemas are directed not against apokatastasis, but against Origen's (or Origenists) total understanding of how salvation plays out. This includes the theory of pre-existent souls, and a pre-cosmic fall. The anathemas link together Origen's speculations about the beginning and his teaching about the end. And both are rejected together. His teaching on the final restoration of all was not condemned in and of itself.

Furthermore, these anathemas represent the views of the emperor and should not have dogmatic authority. Emperors do not define dogma. Emperors rule the empire. And the threat of eternal conscious torment can be a powerful deterrent of civil disorder.

Justinian was like most emperors, a tyrant, and could not accept opposition. When Justinian expects you to approve a document, you do so. Otherwise imprisonment, torture, or exile will follow. Pope Vigilius' house arrest is a good example of the consequences of not taking orders from the emperor. Illaria Ramelli wrote: “The Council that is usually cited as that which ‘condemend Origen’ is the fifth ecumenical council... First of all, its ecumenicity is in fact doubtful, since it was wanted by Justinian and not by Vigilius, the bishop of Rome, or other bishops; Vigilius was even brought to Constantinople by force, by the emperor’s order, and moreover he did not accept to declare that the council was open (Justinian had to do so)", – p. 736, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was held a decade after the Synod of Constantinople. And the anathemas, now fifteen in number, were theological but also political. The emperor wanted to end the turmoil in Palestine and restore peace between the monastics. Had the bishops failed to agree to the anathemas, it would have been treason to the emperor who summoned them. They were under the pressure to assent.

"It was ­Origen who taught the Church how to read Scripture as a living mirror of Christ, who evolved the principles of later trinitarian theology and Christology, who majestically set the standard for Christian apologetics, who produced the first and richest expositions of contemplative ­spirituality, and who—simply said—laid the foundation of the whole edifice of developed Christian thought. Moreover, he was not only a man of extraordinary personal holiness, ­piety, and charity, but a martyr as well: Brutally tortured during the Decian persecution at the age of sixty-six, he never recovered, but slowly withered away over a period of three years. He was, in short, among the greatest of the Church Fathers and the most illustrious of the saints, and yet, disgracefully, official church tradition—East and West—commemorates him as neither." – David Bentley Hart, Saint Origen, First Things.

So was Origen a saint or a heretic?

I don't know. A believer, according to the Bible, is a saint because of his relationship with Christ. But I guess he was also a heretic if he actually taught what he was accused of. So was he a saint or a heretic? I guess the answer is yes and yes?

But with that being said, I am not 100% convinced that the belief in the final restoration of all human beings is a heresy. At least it wasn't during the first 500 years of Christianity.