Were the Church Fathers Universalists?

I’ve read more than once the claim that most early Christians were universalists. And this is occasionally supported by the further opinion that several early (first six centuries) theological schools were universalist in their teaching. This seems implausible to me. However, I’m certainly not someone who is a student of the history of the early church. So what am I to do? I’m to look for evidence.

What is clear is that there is a steep, sharp decline from the theological writing of the New Testament and what one finds among early Christian writings. ‘Rabbi’ Duncan once amusingly said ‘It is a mistake to look to the Fathers as our seniors. They were our juniors. The Church has advanced wonderfully since its foundation was laid. Polycarp would have stood a bad chance in an examination by John Owen. I think I could have posed him myself.’

Still, this belief in a decline in theological quality in the immediate post-Apostolic church is rather different from the claim about universalism, which seems much more dubious.

To start with, it would seem that the opinion that most early Christians were universalists is impossible to test. Who are these Christians? Where have most of them left any traces of holding such beliefs? Is this evidence written? Do these Christians themselves make the claim? In making the claim, do they explicitly controvert the non-universalist sentiments of the NT? Is there evidence in the liturgies of the early church that they embodied or gave expression or tacit assent to universalism?

Continue reading at www.credomag.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Robert De Leon

If the author is a Calvinist it's not a surprise to me his comments. If he is from another "deformer" church it's a simple ignorant of our Catholic Faith.
Let me remind to you that "catholic" precisely means universal. Therefore the Early Fathers – and the modern Fathers of the Church – are Catholics. So simple.
Robert.
- abcedlin
  
  Your comment is typical of the closed minded, bigoted attitude of those who have never read one word of Calvin. And im not a Calvinist, im a Catholic….who actually informs myself of what others write. Second, the author has a point, which should not frighten you. the early fathers were not perfect and their writings are not canonical. However, this idea that they were universalists is nonsense (your only correct comment). This is a modern Evangelical attempt to rewrite the history of the Chruch to fit a late 18th century liberal theology.
cyoder

The catholic church is not the Catholic church. It's not so simple.
- http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
  
  Yes, it is actually ROMAN Catholic or any other rite they have you want to put in FRONT of Catholic…
  - Dionesius3
    
    Your showing extreme ignorance on this one Des, when the word is used "catholic" lower case it simply means "the whole church" it is generic. When it is Capitalized it denotes the Roman Catholic church specifically.the word 'catholic' means 'universal, relating to all men, all-inclusive' and comes from the Latin 'catholicus', which came from the Greek 'katholikos' meaning 'universal', while on the other hand 'Catholic' means 'the Christian Church before separation [ie in 330AD] into the Greek or Eastern and Latin or Western churches' and after the [official] separation [ie in 1054AD] 'especially the Roman catholic Church.'.
  - Robert De Leon
    
    I'll tell you this for the last time. I belong to the Christian Catholic Church, the only one that was founded by my Dear Lord Jesus Christ, that is to say God. The rest of "churches" were founded by simple and imperfect men (mainly from XVI Century). If you don't want to understand or recognize this it's your hatred and arrogant problem. The end.
    Robert.
    - Deep_Thinker
      
      No such thing:
      
      Ca·thol·i·cism – The faith, doctrine, system, and practice of a Catholic church, especially the Roman Catholic Church
      
      NOT A CHRISTIAN CHURCH
      - Robert De Leon
        
        What part of "was founded by Christ" you didn't understand?
        Robert.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        DeMelon, your and your priests enchantment does not square up with Holy Writ nor church history. Roman religion is a curroption and mutation of Apostolic Church and its teachings. Those are the facts which you cannot understand nor acknowledge in your crowd religiosity. The crowd is untruth DeMelon and you are on a duped passenger on a wrong train.
    - Kalev
      
      The Roman Catholic Church is Nimrod's Babylon recycled, which both are pure evil and will soon be destroyed.
      - Robert De Leon
        
        Oh, sure, the Christian Catholic Church It will have an end when our Dear KLord Jesus Chjrist comes again in the Final Judgement.
        Robert.
      - Dale
        
        The Roman Catholic Church was not founded by Christ…they broke away from the Orthodox Church according to them. But if I'm wrong, and you are right, thank God for sending Martin Luther to try to reform the blatanly corrupt Catholic Church. Unfortunately they did not listen. My wife was raised RC, but feels she was betrayed when she read God's Word. The Bible came from God, why would anyone follow any church, regardless who founded it, it it turns it's back on God or teaches doctrine contrary to God's word. I was not RC, but was a false convert Christian for many years. A few months ago my life was transformed by Jesus Christ…Neither she or I will return to the vomit we each left behind. Praise God!
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        Roman Catholicism is no more "Christian" than Mormonism is… Both use the lingo, the terms etc. but both present religion radically different from the one taught by the Lord of Glory and His apostles.
- Robert De Leon
  
  Oh, yes. The democratic party it's not the Democratic Party. Of course it's not so simple, it's crazy.
  Robert.
- abcedlin
  
  Amen.
msjallen

I doesn't matter whether they were universalists or not. The responsibility of pastor-teachers of the Word of God should be to learn and study the original languages that the Bible was written through the power of the Holy Spirit and teach accordingly. They need to be taught before they become ministers as well. Too many P-Ts teach from traditional beliefs. A P-T who interprets the Bible strictly or literally from the original languages is one who teaches his congregation using Isagogics, Categorical and Exegesis to explain the scriptures.
2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy (Biblical knowledge) was ever made by an act of human will (design, purpose), but men were carried along by the Holy Spirit who spoke from God.
- Mark in Indy
  
  Of course it matters what the early fathers taught & believed! It was they that set the foundations of what denominations, churches, Christians base modern thought on. This is like saying that history isn't important or that early Western/American thinkers aren't important.
  Remember, it's by & through these ancients that the nuances & common vernacular of that era of language is learned.
  It also keeps us humble in our studies & response to Scriptural languages & the way in which we try to twist portions to fit our needs at that point such as the way you've used 2 Peter. By reading the whole of 2Peter, you will see that he is clearly stating that we are not to misuse prophecy & claim more understanding than what is stated. I don't readily recognize the version you have quoted, but the VERY accurate & reliable ESV clearly shows that YES, we are to study & learn from each other AND the Bible, Sola Scriptura. For without study of others' thoughts & teachings to show where they've been & experienced, then that will surely lead to multiple errors in an INDIVIDUAL'S thinking as he repeats those errors of past thinkers, past history
- Kalev
  
  Problem is we don't have the Brit Chadasha in the "original languages" which was Hebrew for the Gospels.
  - Dionesius3
    
    Kalev Says- "we don't have the Brit Chadasha in the "original languages" which was Hebrew for the Gospels"
    
    What are you trying to imply here Kalev? Are you trying to assert that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew?
    What cereal box did you get that from? Or was it from some Blog you read the other day?
    Give me a break, you can't possibly be serious…
    - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
      
      That is exactly what he asserts… Never mind that between 5764 or so manuscripts from last 1950 years on almost 2 million pages there is not even one nor one iota nor one inclining of that possibility. That is his Jewish fables grounded presupposition that does and must override for him any reality and any proof to the contrary.
    - Kalev
      
      The believers of Yeshua were almost exclusively Jewish and their native language WAS Hebrew, and the four gospels were most likely written in Hebrew before being translated into Greek at a later date. My reading and understanding is that is the most likely scenario.
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        "were most likely written in Hebrew"
        
        History is not lotto Kalev. Did you ever hear about Septuagint and why was is translated into Greek and why Christ quoted THAT translation and His Apostles???
        
        'and their native language WAS Hebrew,"
        
        Nope their native language was ARAMAIC… :)
      - Dionesius3
        
        And your understanding surpasses the combined knowledge of hundreds of thousands of scholars, writers and witnesses to the events?
        You must be a REALLY smart guy there Kalev.
        WOW!
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        It is called indoctrination Dion and its power is on display to all who know the subject.
      - FleshProfitsNothing
        
        Hate to say it, but they DID quote from the Septuagint, even though today people have found some major translational problems (?) with the translation. I mean, they did have 70 translators (or was it 72?), which did not (to my knowledge) confer with each other but rather each translated portions of it for the Alexandrian library. The whole Aramaic thing has me at a loss, because they spoke Hebrew and Greek, and knowing that the Romans had conquered the known world at the time, the #1 language would have been Koine Greek. Kinda how most of the world (countries) today need to know English. And dare I say………………for pretty much the same reasons????
- FleshProfitsNothing
  
  I seen this woman on late night teaching using Hebrew and Greek and she is WAYYY OFF the mark when it comes to context…so, whatever…I think it is a good and necassary thing to know linguistics, but not ESSENTIAL. I mean, look at Johnny McArthur…isn't he spot on in all his doctrine????
http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

I can assure you that your guru pastor is not the only one who studies or knows (if he really does) the original languages.
How is this proclamation of yours in light of the fact that you cannot read Hebrew or Greek yourself?
Byron

Two words, SO-WHAT????
KD

And how do they define "early" Christians? Any church that claims its origins post-~33 A.D. is not the true N.T. church. Remember the apostle Paul's words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:1-3, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."

Speaking to the elders of the church, Luke writes in Acts 20:28-32, "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of the God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified."

That is how we got the Catholic church. Perpetuating false doctrines mixed with corrupt government.
- Kalev
  
  "That is how we got the Catholic church. Perpetuating false doctrines mixed with corrupt government."
  KD, a big AMEN to that.
Steve03

More importantly than what's been noted already, the Church Fathers were men whose native language was the Greek of the New Testament and the Septuagint, and who were a living part of the culture that produced the Bible.
You'd need the equivalent of five or six PhD's — in classics, archaeology, church history, theology, and more — to come close to the knoweldge with which they were born of the texts and the society in which they lived and moved. That's not to say that they were right always and everywhere — they were but dust, as we are — but they stand at least as a witness to the fact that we are not the first, the smartest, or the holiest people to have wrestled with the meaning and purposes of the Faith.
Steve03

And by the way, there are at least as many verses in the Bible that suggest the eventual salvation of all as there are that describe the everlasting damnation of some. Origen wasn't the first to note that God's justice demands there be a hell, his mercy allows — and perhaps requires — that we pray it be empty. The idea that all may be saved in the end (as God says he intends) outrages many, but this gentlest of all heresies (if that's what it is) remains — to paraphrase Christian Gottlieb Barth (1799-1862) — a doctrine only an ox would doubt but only an ass would teach.
- Dionesius3
  
  Steve03 says-"a doctrine only an ox would doubt but only an ass would teach. "
  
  Your quoted AUTHORITY was indeed an "ass" and dumb as an "Ox" to boot.
  - Steve03
    
    You don't even know who he was, and yet you judge him. He's in awfully good company — Evagrios Ponticus, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximos the Confessor, Clement of Alexandria, Isaak of Syria, Dante, and even (in places) Jesus and Paul. Besides, those who are quick to judge the servants of Another are among the foremost of those who had better be praying that Hell ends up empty.
    But don't worry, "It behoved that there should be sin; but all shall be well, and all shall be well, and every manner of thing shall be well."
- FleshProfitsNothing
  
  The ALL means "all sorts of different types of men"….The idea that YHWH, saves everyone is from many vain imaginations, because these many people think they would do a better job of being YHWH than YHWH does. Or at least being EQUAL with YHWH, they seem to believe that YHWH will make "the right decision" on whether to save everyone or not. Which is funny, because I thought we have FREE will…and if God saves EVERYONE then is HE NOT taking away this (supposed) freedom?
  - Steve03
    
    And where does it say that "ALL means all sorts of different types of men"? I assume you mean "all" as in "in Christ all shall be made alive" or "For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all" or "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men" or "And they shall all be taught by God."
    The idea that a God who gave his Son to save — not to condemn — the world will nevertheless send into everlasting fire those who never heard the Gospel or who were prevented from accepting it by cultural blinders or intellectual shortcomings is at least as much the product of the "vain imaginations" of men as the reading that "all" means "all."
    And Dame Julian (whom I quoted — did you mistake her "showing" for Scripture?) clearly meant "all" to mean "every manner of thing."
    - keyboardshark
      
      Steve03 says: "And where does it say that "ALL means all sorts of different types of men"?
      
      While it may not say that it means all sorts of different men, the question is, does ALL MEN mean every entire person in the world, a universal "all"? Let's look at some passages:
      
      "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
      Matthew 10:22
      
      Is Jesus saying that Christians would be universally hated by ALL men everywhere? Even other Christians? Hardly.
      
      "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God."
      I John 4:7
      
      "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
      John 13:34
      
      Here is a verse that uses the phrase "all men", and in the very same verse, shows it is conditional:
      
      "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."
      
      There are many others, but let's look at just one more:
      
      "But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed."
      Mark 11:32
      
      Really? All men everywhere counted John the Baptist as a true prophet? No, some thought he had a devil:
      
      "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil."
      Matthew 11:18
      - Steve03
        
        So sometimes a Biblical all means all and sometimes it doesn't. So it can't be read literally if you want to know what it really means. So we need a pastor-teacher-intercessor with five PhDs to tell us what each and every verse means.
        Now I see that translating the Bible into English was a huge mistake, as it only leads fools like me astray. Wait! Maybe we could get by with just changing all the verses that say "all" to make them read "some"? Like the creationists changed all their "creator" to "intelligent designer" in their textbooks? Oh, wait, that would only work some of the time.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Everything in the bible is subject to interpretation. It means what the reader wants it to mean. Those that disagree cannot understand the word. No matter who the people are that disagree. Supposed believers or non-believers, if they disagree they are unable to understand.
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        That does not mean nor does it preclude the fact that there is a correct interpretation of any given passage.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Steve03 says: "So sometimes a Biblical all means all and sometimes it doesn't."
        
        God chooses His words carefully. That's why we have to be careful to compare Scripture with Scripture before we arrive at a conclusion. Just because in English we generally understand the word "all" to be a universal concept, it does not necessarily follow that it is in the Bible. We have to look at the context and the words that "all" modifies, such as "all men".
        
        No one ever promised that Bible study would be stupid simple. We are encouraged to go beyond the milk of the Word (the basic concepts) to study the meat of the Word (the more difficult concepts):
        
        "12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
        
        13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
        
        14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."
        Hebrews 5
        
        Steve03 also says: "Like the creationists changed all their "creator" to "intelligent designer" in their textbooks?"
        
        That is something outside the Bible and has no bearing on how we interpret the Bible itself. From my understanding, though, the reason for the switch in terms was because the P.C. police did not like the term "creator" being used because it sounded too much like the God of the Bible, so the phrase "intelligent designer" was coined to appease them.
      - Steve03
        
        "we have to be careful to compare Scripture with Scripture before we arrive at a conclusion": In other words, "we have to use one verse to falsify another so as to make the Bible say what we want it to say."
        I'm with you on the idea that we have to read what the Bible says in context, just as we have to read what Homer or James Joyce says in context. But when the immediate context doesn't clearly indicate that the "all" in a particular verse or pericope doesn't really mean "all," "all" must be read as "all."
      - keyboardshark
        
        Steve03 says: "But when the immediate context doesn't clearly indicate that the "all" in a particular verse or pericope doesn't really mean "all," "all" must be read as "all."
        
        But I gave you a verse in which the wording of the verse itself indicated that "all" was not a universal "all". How much more immediate of a context do you need?
        
        "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."
        Matthew 19:11
    - FleshProfitsNothing
      
      Not sure where we are going here, but my short point is that ALL doesn't always mean EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL on earth. I wrote elsewhere on this topic, that "if Christ died for ALL then ALL are saved"…this is UNIVERSALISM, and I hold NOT to it's heresy. I also commented that Arminians (who are all just wimpy Pelagians) ARE at their very ROOT, Pelagian. Will worshipping "gods" as ONE man's transgression HAS put ALL SORTS of men (different tribes nations tongues,etc) under sin by which ALL men (all sorts of men) die. But, it is plain, with proper exegesis and overall hermeneutic that ALL men (every single individual) will NOT BE saved…to the unbeliever who thinks God is saving everyone (individually) this brings a catch 22.
      - FleshProfitsNothing
        
        Either EVERY SINGLE human being will be saved, and that's it, why are we bothering to even talk about it? It's done. And that even goes beyond "calvinism" where a person has NO CHOICE whether to be saved or not because ALL are saved. So, this theology destroys any and all need to preach the gospel, for what need is there? We also not need to worry about false doctrine, or commandments, or anything….we all have a free ride so let's Eat Drink and be Merry for tomorrow we die—oh! yeah! and go to heaven…because we are all saved and we can do whatever we want. What this boils down to the mindset of the Jews at the time…you know, about the GOYIM…the outsider pagan heathens…those "all sorts of different kinds of men"???
FleshProfitsNothing

Well, if you want to be consistent, "Arminians" ARE Universalists. By this we mean, Christ died for all, therefore all are saved. They are also, PELAGIAN, if you get right down to the foundation of this system of belief. Arminian/Pelagians still believe the LIE perpetrated by their father, the devil, that we can be as gods. As for Catholic meaning Universal, that can be debated as well. CATHOLIC–mid-14c., "of the doctrines of the ancient Church," literally "universally accepted," from Fr. catholique, from L.L. catholicus "universal, general," from Gk. katholikos, from phrase kath' holou "on the whole, in general," from kata "about" + gen. of holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)). ***Applied to the Church in Rome c.1554, after the Reformation began.*** General sense of "of interest to all, universal" is from 1550s. As a noun, attested from 1560s.
FleshProfitsNothing

So, the "Holy 'Catholic' Church" didn't call themselves such UNTIL 1554??? hmm! Now lets take another look at the early church "fathers"….They aren't my fathers….Jesus Himself said, Call NO MAN upon the earth your father for your Father is that which is in Heaven…
And as far as the church is better today…ROFL…I don't THINK SO!!!!
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Flesh profits everything. Try doing anything, including praying to your god without flesh. You will quickly see that without flesh, there is nothing that occurs.
  - FleshProftsNothing
    
    God is SPIRIT, and must be worshipped in SPIRIT and in TRUTH…It is the SPIRIT that giveth life, the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING, My words are SPIRIT and they are LIFE. You can TOUT, and PROFFER your own personal doctrine about the flesh, but, it won't deter my belief in the WORDS OF MY SAVIOUR, and LORD, Yeshua. If you don't like Christ's words then get out the scissors…oh…wait!…you'd have to toss your whole Bible in the trash…never mind…Burger King doctrine at it's best. Hold the Pickle, Hold the Lettuce, Special Order, Don't Upset Us, well, your probably humming this to yourself by now…lol. John 6:63…read it and weap…anything we do by the power of the flesh is SIN…this is why there is SOOO many scriptures on walking in the Spirit, and praying in the Spirit, and quenching the Spirit and the such-like…How do people just read the Bible and latch on to the ME and I stuff??? It's about the Father Son and Holy Ghost!!! I pray you get it sometime.
Quest1

If someone should login on this site, today that never had any education along the line of religion, I wonder what their thoughts would be. I'm afraid they would say, "If these are Christians talking to each other, I can certainly do without Christianity..
- http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
  
  "I can certainly do without Christianity.."
  
  You are making a mistake of confusing Christ with those who believe in Him. He was and is without a blemish. We are rotten, stinking sinners needing Him day in and day out and especially on the last day. Guess what, you are not any better either.
- FleshProfitsNothing
  
  Good thing I DON'T SAVE ANYONE!….Besides, not everyone naming YESHUA as Saviour is actually saved…so, if you don't mind…there are those of us who like to show others TRUE doctrine…with the idea that God just might want to Regenerate them that they might believe too. Okey, Dokey???