St. John of Kronstadt on Forgiveness

By St. John of Kronstadt

Fear evil like fire. Don't let it touch your heart even if it seems just or righteous. No matter what the circumstances, don't let it come into you. Evil is always evil. Sometimes evil presents itself as an endeavor to God's glory, or as something with good intentions towards your neighbor. Even in these cases, don't trust this feeling. It's a wrong labor and is not filled with wisdom. Instead, work on chasing evil from yourself. Evil, however innocent it looks, offends God's long-suffering love, which is His foremost glory. Judas betrayed his Lord for 30 silver pieces under the guise of helping the poor. Keep in mind that the enemy continuously seeks your death and attacks more fiercely when you're not alert. His evil is endless. Don't let self-esteem and the love of material goods win you over.

When you feel anger against someone, believe with your whole heart that it's a result of the devil's work in your heart. Try to hate him and his deeds and it will leave you. Don't admit it as a part of yourself and don't justify it. I know this from experience. The devil hides himself behind our souls and we blindly think we're acting by ourselves. Then we defend the devil's work as something that is a part of us. Sometimes we think that anger is a fair reaction to something bad. But the idea that a passion could ever be fair is a total and deadly lie. When someone is angry at you, remember that this evil feeling is not him. He's just fooled by the devil and is a suffering instrument in his hand. Pray that the enemy leaves him and that God opens his spiritual eyes, which have been darkened by the evil spirit. Pray to God for all people enslaved by passions because the enemy is acting in their hearts. Perhaps you hate your neighbor, despise him, don't want to talk to him peacefully and lovingly because he has been rude, arrogant, or disgusting in his speech or manners. You may despise him for being full of himself or proud or disrespectful. But you are to blame more than he is. "Physician, heal yourself!" (Luke 4:23). So, teacher, teach yourself. This kind of anger is worse than any other evil. How could evil be chased out by another evil? How can you take a needle from the eye of another person while having a log in your own? Evil defects must be fixed with love, kindness, resignation, and patience. Admit yourself as the worst of all sinners, and believe it. Consider yourself the worst one, chase away any boldness, anger, impatience and fury. Then you may start helping others. Be indulgent about defects of others, because if you see their faults all the time, there will be continuous enmity. "The plowers plowed upon my back: they made long their furrows" (Psalm 129:3). "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matthew 6:14). We can feel from time to time the most perfect love for God without loving each other. This is a strange thing, and only few care about it. But love for our neighbor will never come without our own effort.

A real Christian doesn't have any reason to be angry about anybody. Anger is the devil's deed. A Christian should have only love inside and since love doesn't boast, he shouldn't boast or have any bad thoughts towards others. For example, I must not think about another person that he is evil, proud etc; and I must not think that if I forgive his offense he would laugh at me or upset me again. We must not let evil hide in us under any pretense. Evil and anger usually have many different veils.

Don't yield to gloomy feelings in your heart but control and eradicate them with the power of faith and the light of the sane mind. These strengths will make you feel secure. "Let me not be put to shame, for I take refuge in you" (Psalm 25:20). Gloomy feelings usually develop deep in the heart. Someone who didn't learn how to control them will be gloomy, pensive most of the time, and it will be hard for him to deal with himself and other people. When he comes close to you, sustain yourself with inner strength, happiness and innocent jokes: and they will leave you soon. This is from experience.

Lord, give me strength to love everyone like myself and never to get angry or work for the devil. Give me strength to crucify my self-esteem, my pride, my greed, my skepticism and other passions. Let us have a name: a mutual love. Let us not worry about anything. Be the only God of our hearts, and let us desire nothing except You. Let us live always in unifying love and let us hate anything that separates us from each other and from love. So be it! So be it!

If God showed Himself to us and lives inside us as we in Him (according to His eternal word), wouldn't He give us everything? Would He ever trick us or leave us? He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all—how will He not also, along with Him, graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:32). Now be comforted, my dear, and know nothing but love. "This is my command: Love one another" (John 15:17).

G. K. Chesterton on Religion and Darwinism

Sunday, February 7, 2010

G. K. Chesterton on Religion and Darwinism

IN the days when Huxley and Herbert Spencer and the Victorian agnostics were trumpeting as a final truth the famous hypothesis of Darwin, it seemed to thousands of simple people almost impossible that religion should survive. It is all the more ironic that it has not only survived them all, but it is a perfect example (perhaps the only real example) of what they called the Survival of the Fittest. It so happens that it does really and truly fit in with the theory offered by Darwin; which was something totally different from most of the theories accepted by Darwinians. This real original theory of Darwin has since very largely broken down in the general field of biology and botany; but it does actually apply to this particular argument in the field of religious history.

The recent re-emergence of our religion is a survival of the fittest as Darwin meant it, and not as popular Darwinism meant it; so far as it meant anything. Among the innumerable muddles, which mere materialistic fashion made out of the famous theory, there was in many quarters a queer idea that the Struggle for Existence was of necessity an actual struggle between the candidates for survival; literally a cut-throat competition. There was a vague idea that the strongest creature violently crushed the others. And the notion that this was the one method of improvement came everywhere as good news to bad men; to bad rulers, to bad employers, to swindlers and sweaters and the rest. The brisk owner of a bucket-shop compared himself modestly to a mammoth, trampling down other mammoths in the primeval jungle. The business man destroyed other business men, under the extraordinary delusion that the eohippic horse had devoured other eohippic horses. The rich man suddenly discovered that it was not only convenient but cosmic to starve or pillage the poor, because pterodactyls may have used their little hands to tear each other’s eyes. Science, that nameless being, declared that the weakest must go to the wall; especially in Wall Street. There was a rapid decline and degradation in the sense of responsibility in the rich, from the merely rationalistic eighteenth century to the purely scientific nineteenth. The great Jefferson, when he reluctantly legalised slavery, said he trembled for his country, knowing that God is just. The profiteer of later times, when he legalised usury or financial trickery, was satisfied with himself; knowing that Nature is unjust.

But, however that may be (and of course the moral malady has survived scientific mistake) the people who talked thus of cannibal horses and competitive oysters, did not understand what Darwin’s thesis was. If later biologists have condemned it, it should not be condemned without being understood, widely as it has been accepted without being understood. The point of Darwinism was not that a bird with a longer beak (let us say) thrust it into other birds, and had the advantage of a duelist with a longer sword. The point of Darwinism was that the bird with the longer beak could reach worms (let us say) at the bottom of a deeper hole; that the birds who could not do so would die; and he alone would remain to found a race of long-beaked birds. Darwinism suggested that if this happened a vast number of times, in a vast series of ages, it might account for the difference between the beaks of a sparrow and a stork. But the point was that the fittest did not need to struggle against the unfit. The survivor had nothing to do except to survive, when the others could not survive. He survived because he alone had the features and organs necessary for survival. And, whatever be the truth about mammoths or monkeys, that is the exact truth about the present survival of religion. It is surviving because nothing else can survive.

Religion has returned; because all the various forms of scepticism that tried to take its place, and do its work, have by this time tied themselves into such knots that they cannot do anything. That chain of causation of which they were fond of talking seems really to have served them after the fashion of the proverbial rope; and when modern discussion gave them rope enough, they quite rapidly hanged themselves. For there is not a single one of the fashionable forms of scientific scepticism, or determinism, that does not end in stark paralysis, touching the practical conduct of human life. Take any three of the normal and necessary ideas on which civilisation and even society depend. First, let us say, a scientific man of the old normal nineteenth-century sort would remark, “We can at least have common sense, in its proper meaning of a sense of reality common to all; we can have common morals, for without them we cannot even have a community; a man must in the ordinary sense obey the law; and especially the moral law.” Then the newer sceptic, who is progressive and has gone further and fared worse, will immediately say, “Why should you worship the taboo of your particular tribe? Why should you accept prejudices that are the product of a blind herd instinct? Why is there any authority in the unanimity of a flock of frightened sheep?” Suppose the normal man falls back on the deeper argument: “I am not terrorised by the tribe; I do keep my independent judgment; I have a conscience and a light of justice within, which judges the world.” And the stronger sceptic will answer: “If the light in your body be darkness–and it is darkness because it is only in your body–what are your judgments but the incurable twist and bias of your particular heredity and accidental environment? What can we know about judgments, except that they must all be equally unjust? For they are all equally conditioned by defects and individual ignorances, all of them different and none of them distinguishable; for there exists no single man so sane and separate as to be able to distinguish them justly. Why should your conscience be any more reliable than your rotting teeth or your quite special defect of eyesight? God bless us all, one would think you believed in God!” Then perhaps the normal person will get annoyed and say rather snappishly, “At least I suppose we are men of science; there is science to appeal to and she will always answer; the evidential and experimental discovery of real things.” And the other sceptic will answer, if he has any sense of humour: “Why certainly. Sir Arthur Eddington is Science; and he will tell you that science cannot destroy religion, or even defend the multiplication table. Sir Bertram Windle was Science; and he would tell you that the scientific mind is completely satisfied in the Roman Catholic Church. For that matter. Sir Oliver Lodge was Science; and he reached by purely experimental and evidential methods to a solid belief in ghosts. But I admit that there are men of science who cannot get to a solid belief in anything; even in science; even in themselves. There is the crystalographer of Cambridge who writes in the Spectator the lucid sentence: ‘ We know that most of what we know is probably untrue.’ Does that help you on a bit, in founding your sane and solid society?”

We have of course seen just lately the most dramatic exit of great material scientists from the camp of Materialism. It was Eddington I think, who used the phrase that the universe seems to be more like a great thought than a great machine: and Dr. Whitney as reported, has declared that there is no rational description of the ultimate cosmic motion except the Will of God. But it is the perishing of the other things, at least as much as the persistence of the one thing, that has left us at last face to face with the ancient religion of our fathers. The thing once called free thought has come finally to threaten everything that is free. It denies personal freedom in denying free will and the human power of choice. It threatens civic freedom with a plague of hygienic and psychological quackeries; spreading over the land such a network of pseudo-scientific nonsense as free citizens have never yet endured in history. It is quite likely to reverse religious freedom, in the name of some barbarous nostrum or other, such as constitutes the crude and ill-cultured creed of Russia. It is perfectly capable of imposing silence and impotence from without. But there is no doubt whatever that it imposes silence and impotence from within. The whole trend of it, which began as a drive and has ended in a drift, is towards some form of the theory that a man cannot help himself; that a man cannot mend himself; above all, that a man cannot free himself. In all its novels and most of its newspaper articles it takes for granted that men are stamped and fixed in certain types of abnormality of anarchical weakness; that they are pinned and labeled in a museum of morality or immorality; or of that sort of unmorality which is more priggish than the one and more hoggish than the other. We are practically told that we might as well ask a fossil to reform itself. We are told that we are asking a stuffed bird to repent. We are all dead, and the only comfort is that we are all classified. For by this philosophy, which is the same as that of the blackest of Puritan heresies, we all died before we were born. But as it is Kismet without Allah, so also it is Calvinism without God.

The agnostics will be gratified to learn that it is entirely due to their own energy and enterprise, to their own activity in pursuing their own antics, that the world has at last tired of their antics and told them so. We have done very little against them; non nobis, Domine; the glory of their final overthrow is all their own. We have done far less than we should have done, to explain all that balance of subtlety and sanity which is meant by a Christian civilisation. Our thanks are due to those who have so generously helped us by giving a glimpse of what might be meant by a Pagan civilisation. And what is lost in that society is not so much religion as reason; the ordinary common daylight of intellectual instinct that has guided the children of men. A world in which men know that most of what they know is probably untrue cannot be dignified with the name of a sceptical world; it is simply an impotent and abject world, not attacking anything, but accepting everything while trusting nothing; accepting even its own incapacity to attack; accepting its own lack of authority to accept; doubting its very right to doubt. We are grateful for this public experiment and demonstration; it has taught us much. We did not believe that rationalists were so utterly mad until they made it quite clear to us. We did not ourselves think that the mere denial of our dogmas could end in such dehumanised and demented anarchy. It might have taken the world a long time to understand that what it had been taught to dismiss as mediaeval theology was often mere common sense; although the very term common sense, or communis sententia, was a mediaeval conception. But it took the world very little time to understand that the talk on the other side was most uncommon nonsense. It was nonsense that could not be made the basis of any common system, such as has been founded upon common sense.

Paisios on our thoughts...

Elder Paisios:

The mind is one of the three sources of thoughts. The first source is God, the Holy Spirit who brings holy and sacred thoughts in man's mind. The second source is the devil who comes, as it is known, even as an angel of light and seeds the unclean, sly, blasphemous thoughts in man's soul. The second source is the devil and the third is the mind of man, which produce the thoughts, either sly or kind.

Thanks to John Sanidopoulos

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/

St. Gregory of Nyssa on Heaven and hell

2. The views of the interpreters of the position of St. Gregory of Nyssa as to the restoration of all things

In all his writings St. Gregory of Nyssa was occupied with questions about life after death, what is the soul, how man's person is maintained after its departure from the body, how the resurrection of the body will take place, what is the Kingdom of God, and so forth. We have seen many of these views in other chapters of this book.

Included among such eschatological topics is what is called the theory of the restoration of all things. Apart from a few exceptions, almost all who have studied this teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa have come to the conclusion that the saint was influenced by Origen on the subject of the restoration of all things. Indeed, as they affirm, he does not accept all of Origen's theories on these topics, for he rejects reincarnation, the recycling of souls, but in the restoration of all things he follows the views of Origen with moderation. Thus, they say, St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the restoration in a positive way.

We shall take a general look at the impression made on the different interpreters by St. Gregory's views on this subject, and then we shall examine whether their conclusions correspond with the truth. The things which the interpreters comment upon and cite were indeed said by St. Gregory, but what we must say is that they are not interpreted in the authentic frames of reference, and at some points the truth of what is said is not understood. For, as we shall see in what follows, on the subject of the restoration of all things St. Gregory does not mean what most of his students ascribe to him. Actually, to understand the teaching of St. Gregory one must set up the appropriate interpretive keys, and place what he says within the whole tradition of the Church.

Man's basic aim, according to St Gregory of Nyssa, is deification. We must look at man's salvation only from this perspective. But in order for anyone to succeed in this very high aim, he must be purified, which is essential for man. Purification can be achieved in the present life. But if some cannot succeed here, another life will follow. To be sure, St. Gregory of Nyssa does not accept metempsychosis, which, according to Origen, continues man's purification, but St. Gregory accepts that purification also continues after death.

Purification after death takes place through the so-called purifying fire, which is therapeutic. Thus the torments of Hades are therapeutic, a thing which means that they are not eternal. At some time Hades will cease to exist. The souls will enter into eternity after their purification, which some have in the present life and others have after death.

Purification and salvation come through God's love and philanthropy. God, as lover of mankind, is training man for renewal.

The blessings arising from purification are very many. Man's nature is renewed, because he casts away all the false and alien elements which have been added to it.

Within these frames of reference even death itself will be abolished, evil will disappear and thus everything will be subject to God. St. Gregory of Nyssa gives special emphasis to the existence and disappearance of evil. Evil, according to him, is not an ontological fact, because it is lack of love. Evil is corruptible. But everything corruptible is not ungenerated. Just for that reason evil does not exist in essence, but the quality of evil exists. Since the quality does not constitute the essence, evil is not an essence.

This means that evil is not eternal, but has a temporary character. It is not possible for evil, which is ungenerated and corruptible, to overpower the good and incorruptible, which is God. Consequently, at some time evil, which is not an essence, will be abolished. The exhaustion and abolition of evil is not contrary to man's freedom, because if that were the case, human freedom would be stronger than the good God and His power, since it would have the power to prolong infinitely the path of evil. Consequently evil will end some time.

Not only will men's souls be purified and evil done away with, but also the devil will submit to God, which means that he will be saved. Christ's redemption has proved ultimately to be salvation even for the devil. Christ assumed human nature and died on the Cross, and the devil, trapped by Christ's flesh like a fish on a hook, was obliged to yield up the souls which he had seized. Thus this proved salvation also for the devil.

Certainly the interpreters of St. Gregory of Nyssa indicate that in his whole theological system there are many contradictions. One contradiction which St. Gregory tries to solve is how the "necessary"purification and restoration of all men, and even of the devil, can be reconciled with the freedom which both man and the devil have. Another contradiction is how, while he speaks of the abolition of evil and the final salvation of all men, he also writes about the eternity of Hell. And how, while he accepts the restoration of all things, in which Origen believes, at the same time he does not accept the recycling of souls or reincarnation, which is linked with the purification of the soul and the restoration of all things.

I am of the opinion that it is just in these so-called contradictions noted by those who study St Gregory of Nyssa that the source of their misinterpretation of the saint's teaching as well as the real meaning of his theses are to be found. One must examine his "contradictions"carefully in order to see what is St. Gregory's vision of the restoration of all things.

There are also interpreters who try to see the real presuppositions of the teaching of St Gregory and to demonstrate that St. Gregory did not teach Origen's views. We shall touch on all these things in the next section, where we try to sketch the framework of the theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa, because we believe that St Gregory is misjudged. So there needs to be a restoration of St. Gregory of Nyssa with regard to the so-called theory of the restoration.

I am not under the illusion that what we say will exhaust the subject, but the essential points will be underlined with which, if recognised by the student of his work, he can interpret the teaching of the saint⁶.

3. Interpretive commentary on the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa about the restoration of all things

In this section we shall try to analyse the "contradictions"which interpreters point to when they study the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa, because the true interpretation of his works is found here.

From the beginning we must emphasise that the topics and the language in which St. Gregory writes are both difficult for the modern reader. We need always to have in mind that the fourth century Fathers, especially St. Gregory of Nyssa, had a serious problem to deal with. They had to face the philosophers' questions about cosmological, ontological and soteriological problems and give answers within the Revelation. We are not occupied with such questions today, and that is why it is hard for us to understand them. We can, however, interpret the teaching of St. Gregory within the experience of the Church.

We shall try to look at the interpretive framework of St. Gregory of Nyssa's teaching concerning the last things and the restoration of all things, in five points.

a) His great ecclesiastical personality

St. Gregory was a truly great spiritual figure. When one reads his works, one delights in the breadth of his thought, the fertility of his teaching, and above all, his great sensitivity. He deals with very difficult topics, and yet he does not depart from the Orthodox Tradition.

In St. Gregory of Nyssa we find the teaching that the deepest task of the Church is to cure man, who is in the process of purification, and that man's goal is deification. Other Fathers too analysed this fact but St. Gregory of Nyssa undertook a delicate analysis. In his work "The Life of Moses", which is a model theological treatise, he makes wonderful elaborations and observations.

In general, St. Gregory of Nyssa, brother of Basil the Great was concerned with subjects which were difficult for the human spirit to work out. His great sensitiveness, which is felt in the conversation that he had with his sister Macrina before she died, and in the way in which he presented her death and faced the separation from her, makes a striking impression. He was a truly great theologian and quite a sensitive spiritual father.

The merit of his great personality was recognised by the whole Church. After the death of his brother Basil the Great in 379, St. Gregory of Nyssa made several ecclesiastical initiatives to fortify the Orthodox faith against the Christological heresies of his time. His presence at the Council of Antioch in 379 was dynamic, as were his peace-making missions for the Church in Pontos and Arabia. Generally speaking, St. Gregory possessed great authority, and therefore he was interested in the regulation of ecclesiastical matters, chiefly on dogmatic questions.

His presence at the Second Ecumenical Council, in Constantinople in 381, was important. To be sure, the theology of his brother Basil the Great, who had died two years previous to the convocation of the Council, predominated at this Council, but St. Gregory proved to be the theological voice of the Council.

During the business of the Council, St. Gregory read to St. Gregory the Theologian his treatise opposing the views of Eunomios, who had opposed Basil the Great after the latter had written an attack on the heretical views of Eunomios. The reasoning of Basil the Great so astonished Eunomios that he replied fourteen years later with his work "Apologia for an apologia". But then it was not possible for Basil the Great to answer because he was approaching the end of his life. St. Gregory of Nyssa fulfilled this mission with success. With his three books he literally pulverised the views of Eunomios, defending the Orthodox faith as well as the memory of his brother. These writings are among the finest anti-heretical texts.

In the Second Ecumenical Council he was recognised by all as the theologian par excellence. He read the opening speech at the Synod, pronounced the funeral oration to Meletius of Antioch, who was chairman of the Council, gave the speech at the enthronement of St. Gregory the Theologian at Constantinople, and, as is believed, was the one who gave the final form to the Creed and formulated the article about the Holy Spirit: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets". In particular, it is said that in the iconography of the Second Ecumenical Council St. Gregory is presented as the recording clerk of the Council.

Before the end of the business of this Council the emperor Theodosios gave a decree by which St. Gregory was defined as one of the three bishops who would be a model of the faith for the bishops of Pontos, meaning that all who did not agree with the teaching of St. Gregory and have communion with him were heretics.

After the Council he made trips to Syria, Palestine and Arabia to solve various problems of the Church, as well as taking part in councils for the defence of the Orthodox faith. All these things show that he had a position of great influence in the Orthodox world. Indeed it was assigned to him to give the funeral orations for princess Pulcheria and Queen Plakilla.

After these events, which are known in church history from the ecclesiastical activities of St. Gregory of Nyssa, there are also synodal texts which point to him as a great ecumenical father of the Church. The Third Ecumenical Council, recognising the value of his personality and his theology, named him "second man after his brother in both words and manners". This phrase means that he was second only to his brother Basil the Great. But also four hundred years after his death the Seventh Ecumenical Council gave him the one and only title which it has given to theologians in the Church, naming him "father of fathers". Indeed it is well known how Basil the Great answered the expressions of surprise that he had made such a very valuable man bishop of the unimportant city of Nyssa - and he was not referring to St. Gregory the Theologian, since he used the word `brother'. "Let a Bishop not be proud of the place, but let the place be proud of him"⁷.

Such a great patristic personage, whom the Church itself through the Ecumenical councils calls "father of fathers"and second only to Basil the Great in his words and ways, and such a saint, who was called one of the Three Hierarchs, cannot have fallen so gravely as to the theory of the restoration of all things. Therefore all who affirm that St. Gregory accepts such theories, which the Church itself has condemned, are mistaken. How could it have been possible for the theory of the restoration of all things to be condemned by the councils and yet for St. Gregory of Nyssa to be highly praised?

b) His views about philosophy

Many interpreters of St. Gregory of Nyssa declare that he was the most philosophical of the Fathers of the Church, that on many questions, especially that of the restoration of all things, he was led astray by the philosophising theologians of his time, such as Origin.

We must repeat what we said before, that St. Gregory was not misled into his writings by philosophy and its theories, for he himself is a measure and criterion of Orthodox faith and life. What he undertook to do was to answer the ontological questions put by philosophy. Philosophy put questions: what is Being, what are beings, what relationships exist betwen Being and beings, what is evil, how did it come into the world, what is the soul, and so forth. St. Gregory of Nyssa was occupied with these so-called ontological questions and gave answers within revealed experience. This was even the chief work of the Fathers in that crucial epoch⁸.

No one can characterise him as a philosopher because he was working with the ontological problems which philosophy posed. Besides, his many ascetic writings, his spiritual homilies and the answers which he gave to many philosophical problems show that the accusation directed against St. Gregory is unrealistic.

His view of philosophy is formulated in many of his writings. However, I should like to present his views on philosophy as they appear in his text "Concerning virtue, or the life of Moses".

Commenting on the fact that in order to save her newborn child, Moses' mother put him in a basket and threw it into the river, St. Gregory of Nyssa sees the river as the waves of this life and the basket as education in the different disciplines. If anyone has such an education he will not sink in the waves but will come out on to the dry land.

Pharaoh's daughter, who was barren and sterile, adopted the little Moses. She symbolises profane philosophy, which was barren and sterile. No one can refuse this barren and sterile education, imperfect as it is, but when one goes up on the mountain as Moses did, then he "will be ashamed to be called the son of one who is barren by nature". Thus whoever lives the revelation and attains the vision of God feels shame and disgrace at being called a child of philosophy.

Speaking more analytically about philosophy, that it is sterile and of no use for salvation, he writes: "For truly barren is profane education, which is always in labour but never gives birth. For what fruit worthy of such pangs does philosophy show for being so long in labour? Do not all who are full of wind and never come to term miscarry before they reach the light of the knowledge of God, although they could as well become men if they were not altogether hidden in the womb of barren wisdom?".

In this astonishing passage St. Gregory of Nyssa's view of philosophy is made clear. By the term "profane education"he means philosophy and not the other scientific subjects. While philosophy always feels the labour pains, it has never given birth, but has remained sterile. It has brought no fruit to man. And he observes particularly that people would have been able to become practical men if they had not been hidden in the womb of this sterile wisdom.

Then St. Gregory says that we can be involved with profane words during our education, but at the same time we should not separate ourselves from the milk of the Gospel which nourishes us. And really he who receives only profane education and does not look at the teaching and the morals of his parents will find himself between two antagonists.

St. Gregory criticises philosophy. He says that there is something carnal and uncircumcised in what is taught in the lessons of philosophy, and if that were removed, the pure Israelite race would remain. Then he gives several examples. Philosophy accepts that the soul is immortal but asserts that it passes from one body to another and from rational nature to irrational. Philosophy also speaks about God, but it thinks of Him as material. It speaks of God as Creator but thinks that He needs matter for creation, that is to say, He did not create the world out of nothing. He believes that God is good and powerful, but he says that He submits to the necessity of fate. Thus in philosophy there is a piety, since it is concerned with God, but at the same time it has something carnal about it⁹.

When St. Gregory's views of philosophy are like this, it is out of place for us to regard him as a philosopher father influenced by the views of philosophy about the restoration of all things. Such contradictions can be found neither in a deified saint such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, nor in a man who has the highly intellectual attributes and gifts which St. Gregory had. It is rather we ourselves who lack the attributes and are unable to penetrate the content of his God-inspired teaching.

c) His teaching about man's choice and the perpetuity of Hell

In many of his texts St. Gregory speaks of man's freedom of choice, which is not abolished by God, and also about the perpetuity of Hell. Both these positions of his remove every notion of the theory of the restoration of all things as affirmed by Origen.

In his great catechetical oration, in which he refers to the Catechism and the value of Baptism, at the end he continues the subject of the change in a man's whole existence which comes about by his choice. He writes that holy Baptism is called birth from above, that is, it is man's rebirth and reconstitution, but it does not alter his characteristic features. This human nature does not of itself admit of any "change by Baptism", and neither is his reason or intelligence changed, nor his cognition nor any other characteristic of human nature. This must take place through man's struggle before and after Baptism. The grace of God which we receive through Baptism does not bring about our rebirth unless we ourselves play a part in it.

St. Gregory reaches the point of making a bold statement, as he himself says. If in spite of Baptism the soul has not removed the stains - which means if our life after Baptism is the same as it was before - then the water of the sacrament is simply water, "because the grace of the Holy Spirit did not appear". In other words, it is as if a man had not received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Whoever trumpets his rebirth through Baptism, but still has the same way of life should listen to the word of God who says: "If anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself"and "As many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God". If anyone asserts that he has received God, he must demonstrate it by his choice. "Manifest in yourself Him Who begot you". And he asks very incisively: "Do you not know that a man becomes a son of God in no other way than by becoming holy?". To become a child of God one must be holy.

Those who do not change their way of life will have many punishments. The life of sinners in the next life will not be similar to the tribulations of the earthly life. St. Gregory speaks of the punishing fire which the sinner will encounter, and not of a rebirth in the next life. He writes incisively: "When you hear the word fire, you have been taught to think of a fire other than the fire we see, owing to something being added to that fire which is not in this. "The fire which man will experience in the next life will be different from the fire of the present life. The fire of this life is extinguished in various ways, whereas the fire of the next life remains unextinguished. "That fire, therefore, is something other than this".

If, again, a person hears about a worm which will devour man, it is meant in a completely different way from the worm that lives in the earth. For "the addition that `it does not die' suggests the thought of another reptile than that known here"¹⁰.

From this brief presentation of the teaching of St. Gregory about choice and Hell several truths emerge. First, that the grace of the Holy Spirit, through Baptism, does not regenerate the person if choice is not put into action. Therefore a man's choice has great significance. Secondly, that there exists Hell, in which fire and worm which do not resemble sensory realities hold sway. They are uncreated realities. Indeed, the fact that the things of eternal life will not be like the present day, and that the worm "does not die", shows that both the purifying fire and the tormenting action of the worms is the uncreated energy of God, which will be experienced by those who have not been purified in this life. The combination of the pains of the life after death with endlessness shows that there will be no end to purification, as the studies of St. Gregory suggest.

In other texts of his we read about participating in the light, that is, God. Analysing the life of Moses and regarding Moses as a prototype of perfection for every Christian, he says that Moses saw God in the burning bush that was not consumed, because he had first taken off his sandals.

He applies this to the vision of God, which every man can have. God is truth and this truth is light. The life of virtue leads to this knowledge of the great light. And lest it be thought that St. Gregory is speaking of a human and humanistic virtue, we must say that he links virtue with purity of the soul. It is not possible for sandaled feet to ascend that height where the light of truth is seen. Therefore the soul must be freed from these foundations. It is not a matter of putting off the body, but of freeing the soul from the garments of skin in which nature was wrapped after its insubordination. Thus the light of truth will be seen and the knowledge of being will come about through purifying our opinion about nonbeing, since nonbeing is false and a fantasy. According to St. Gregory, being outside God is nonbeing, from the point of view that it is falsehood and fantasy and not that it is non-existent¹¹.

And in this interpretation it is obvious that through purification man attains knowledge of being and casts away nonbeing, which is falsehood and fantasy. This interpretation will be useful when we later study his view of evil, which is nonbeing. It does not mean that the person who experiences evil disappears, but precisely because he lives far from being, which is truth, he lives in falsehood. The man exists, but he does not live according to God. There is a difference between existing and living according to God.

St. Gregory of Nyssa links Paradise and Hell with man's choice. He knows clearly that there is eternal Paradise and eternal Hell. Moreover, even those who are still critical of him do not deny that St. Gregory at many points in his teachings accepts the eternity of Hell. We have already seen one such case before, when he spoke of the worm that never dies. But placed organically within the teaching of the Church, he teaches that Paradise and Hell do not exist from God's point of view, but from man's point of view. It is a subject of man's choice and condition. We can understand the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa only if we study it within these orthodox presuppositions.

Referring to the double effect of light on the Hebrews and the Egyptians, he says that while the sun of righteousness illuminated them in the same way with its rays, yet "the Hebrews delighted in its light, but the Egyptians were insensitive to its gift". The Egyptians too received the grace of God, but since they were insensitive, they perceived it as darkness.

The same thing happens with other men as well. The same grace, the same light, sends its rays to all men, but some wander in darkness because of evil deeds and the darkness of evil, and others shine, living in the light of virtue.

The Egyptians were punished because their choice worked in that way, when they themselves called forth God's punishment. "The Egyptians' free will caused all these things according to the above principle, and the impartial justice of God followed their free choices and brought upon them what they deserved".

The same is true with tribulations, which we think come from God. The creator of sorrows and tribulations is each person through his own choice. "Each man makes his own plagues through his own free will". The same will be the case in the eternal life. To the one who has lived without sin there is no darkness, no worm, no fire. The same place is a calamity for one and not for another. This means that it is a matter of their choice. Therefore "it is evident that nothing evil can come into existence apart from our free choice". Evil cannot exist without our choice¹².

This analysis shows clearly that St. Gregory does not deny the existence of Hell, but he says that it is a matter of man's choice. For God, Hell does not exist, nor did God make man for Hell but it is man's free choice.

In the works of St. Gregory it is stated that evil must be thrown out of man's existence, and "that which does not exist in being must cease to exist at all". This does not mean that there will be a period in which beings which have no share and communion with God will cease to exist. In any case, evil does not have being in itself, but it is the deprivation of good. In other words, the person who has been darkened will be deprived of the illuminating quality of God, and so he will be like not existing, while he will live eternally. The illuminating action of God will not be received, but only its caustic and punishing quality. He writes: "Since evil does not exist by its nature outside of free choice, evil will suffer a complete annihilation, because no receptacle remains for it"¹³.

The problem arises: what will happen if man does not yield his free choice to God? This is a question for those who are convinced that St. Gregory teaches the restoration of all things in accordance with the views of Origen. And they think that the saint is inconsistent. But there is no contradiction in his work, his teaching can be understood within the tradition of the Church. It means that everyone who does not give his choice to God will have no share of God. They will exist but they will not participate in God. And since God is life and being, therefore those, although they will exist, will live in nonbeing, they will not have communion with God.

Likewise the existence of the punishing fire, which is the purifying grace of God, will be a permanent development and healing for the saint which will go on also in the next life. The purifying fire, as we have indicated, according to the teaching of St. Gegory of Nyssa, is uncreated and unending. It is the grace of God, which will purify and sanctify man increasingly, since perfection is unending, as he himself teaches. In this sense he speaks of a purifying fire for the righteous¹⁴.

Consequently the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa about Paradise and Hell is a part of the patristic framework. At least I personally have not discovered any departure from the orthodox teaching. It is only that St. Gregory's speech is more difficult than that of the other Fathers of the Church.

In the preceding chapter we saw the views of his brother Basil the Great about how God becomes light and fire according to man's spiritual condition. It is not possible that St. Gregory, who loved and revered and agreed so far with Basil the Great, would differ from that orthodox teaching.

d) Interpretive analysis of particular passages

We have examined the basic views of St. Gregory of Nyssa about the purification of man, which is linked with his free will, which not even God can abolish, and about the eternity of Hell. We have seen how purification even in the life after death is understood, and how the abolition of evil is understood.

But we should come back to an intepretive analysis of several passages which are used by theologians to support the view that St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the restoration of all things according to Origen's understanding. Some repetitions will help in the understanding of the subject, because we are comparing intepretive analyses of parallel passages.

After the fall of man the stains of sin appeared in the soul. Thus man needs to be cured of these stains. For this reason "the medicine which virtue supplies has, in the present life been applied to the healing of such wounds". A man is purified by virtue, by the struggle which he makes to keep the commandments of God. But if he remains uncured after the soul's departure from the body, "the remedy is dispensed in the life that follows this". If some bodily illnesses are more easily cured than others, the same is the case with the soul. Hence "for the cure of the soul's sicknesses the future judgement promises something of the same kind"¹⁵.

This passage is used by various people studying the saint to show that he is teaching the continuation of purification also in the life after death for unrepentant sinners. One can come to such an arbitrary conclusion if one is unaware of the teaching that the development for the deified will be continuous, never ceasing, in the next life.

In the next chapter the reader will see the Church's teaching on this point. According to the teaching of the authoritative Fathers, if a person had entered the stage of repentance before his death but had not been purified, the cure would continue in him "in perpetuity", since virtue does not have an end. This, to be sure, does not refer to those who of their own choice remained completely unrepentant and had not entered the stage of repentance. Besides, the saints teach that the angels too will be increasingly receptive of divine grace, in which case even for angels we can use the word purification.

The other passage of St. Gregory which is used by those who maintain that the Saint accepts Origen's theory of the restoration of all things must also be seen in this light.

In his catechetical treatise he says that it will be the same with man's soul as it is with his body. Just as people with bodily illnesses undergo treatment and are angry with the doctors curing them, but when they are cured they gratefully enjoy their health, so it is with the soul. "In like manner, when, after long periods of time, the evil of our nature, which now is mixed up with it and has grown with its growth, has been expelled, and when there has been a restoration to their primal state of those who are now lying in sin, a harmony of thanksgiving will arise from all creation, as well from those who in the process of the purification have suffered chastisement and from those who needed no purification at all"¹⁶.

This passage speaks of the restoration of human nature to its original state, of its liberation from the evil which came into it as a result of the fall, and of the unanimous thanks given to God by all. And this passage does not teach the theory of the restoration of all things, which the Church condemns.

First of all it must be interpreted in the light of St. Gregory's entire teaching about eternal Hell, which depends on man's choice. It cannot be done independently of his whole teaching, because then it is misinterpreted.

Next it must be underlined here that purifying and ridding human nature of evil, and restoring it, are connected with taking off the garments of skin of corruption and mortality. We know very well that now with the incarnation of Christ and the experience of it, but especially at the Second Coming of Christ, corruption and mortality will be done away with. This means that the bodies of all will be resurrected, of both the just and the unjust, and all the bodies will enjoy immortality and incorruptibility. In the teaching of the holy Fathers the Apostle Paul's saying about the sinner: "He himself will be saved, yet so as through fire"means that he will continue to be punished in the fire, that is, the sinner will be saved, he will not be destroyed.

Therefore here it is a question of the restoration of nature and not of volition, as we shall say further on.

In this sense all will give thanks, that is to say, they will recognise God as creator of the world and as true God, both those punished "in purification"and those who did not have any beginning of purification, because they lived in the illumination of the nous.

I have the impression, in line with the whole teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa that the phrase "of those punished in purification"means those people who by reason of their own choice are in the everlasting fire, where the experience of the grace of God is as fire. It surely does not mean that the time will come some day when they will be rescued from Hell, since Hell is eternal, but that, being burned by this uncreated fire, they will confess the existence of God. The thanksgiving of all creation is either positive or negative.

The fact that the restoration of the punished is regarded by St. Gregory as the taking off of the garments of skin, of decay and mortality, which the sinners too will enjoy, even as recognition of God, appears also in other parallel passages.

Speaking of the resurrection of the bodies he says that incoruptibility, glory, honour and power are features of the divine nature. The same things were originally features of man too, who was created in the image of God, and it is hoped that they will again become his. Through sin corruption entered human nature. But after the resurrection of the body this will be changed. It is a question, that is, of the restoration of nature from sin and not the restoration of volition.

It is difficult to interpret the passage to which we have referred, but it can be done if it is seen in the perspective of his whole teaching. St. Gregory of Nyssa affirms that all will be resurrected, but one will not be imperfect in body and another perfect. Just as the imprisoned and the free have the same body, but differ as to pleasure and sorrow, the same difference can be seen also in the next life between the good and the bad. The sinners will not have bodily deficiencies, but deprivation and enstrangement from God. The righteous will have glory and honour.

What St. Gregory wishes to emphasise here is that while all will rise again, the spiritual condition of each will be different, according to his inner disposition and choice. The words incorruptibility, glory, honour and power do not refer simply to all the people who will rise, but to those who have been purified.

He writes: "However, once such souls have been purified by fire and sanctified, the other qualities will enter into them in place of the evil ones, namely, incorruptibility, life, honour, grace, glory, power, and whatever else we conjecture to be discerned in God and that image of Him which is human nature"¹⁷.

In these words of his he is referring to the teaching of the Apostle Paul about the risen body: "It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15, 43-44).

What St. Gregory is pointing to here is that, despite the casting off of decay and mortality, men's position will be different. These conceptions, incorruptibility, glory, honour and power do not refer to the bodily condition, but mainly to the soul, which reflects on the body too, that is to say, it is related to the purification which the soul has received from this life. He is not speaking about all men, but about those who are regarded among the finest, and not about those who are not with God. It is a question of the healing which took place by the power of the action of God, which seems like fire at first, as well as by the synergy of their own choice.

As it seems here, a distinction is being made between what is purified and what is done away with. In this case it is not a question of the restoration of all things, as Origen said.

One can see these views in a small but succinct work of his, in which he analyses the Apostle Paul's words: "When all things are made subject to Him, then the Son himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him" (1 Cor. 15, 28). The Son will be subject to God His Father, since all things were first made subject to Him.

In what follows we shall set out the central ideas of this work of St. Gregory of Nyssa, because we are of the opinion that his teaching about eschatology, that is to say, the life in the last times, is summarised in it.

First. In this analysis he is centring his attention and interest mainly on the interpretation of the phrase, "the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him". This treatise is more Christological, because the heretics of his time used this passage to emphasise that Christ is a creature of God.

So he says that the Apostle Paul's words refer to the future resurrection of the dead, when through Christ all things will be subject to the Father.

Therefore St. Gregory of Nyssa analyses exhaustively that the words of the Apostle refer to the human nature which Christ assumed and to the future abolition of death, of which the resurrection of Christ is the commencement.

St. Gregory analyses that this passage refers to the human nature which Christ assumed. This is subject to the Father as well as to his own divinity, since there is not one divinity of the Father and another of the Son. Human nature always followed divine nature. The subjection of all human nature took place in Christ.

Since our approach to the Father takes place in Christ, that is why this union is called subjection of the Son to the Father. "The subjection of His Body is said to be subjection of the Son, Who has been mingled with His own Blood, which is the Church¹⁸. And at another point he says that the knowledge of being and the salvation of all human nature point to the subjection of the Son to the Father¹⁹.

Second. A consequence of the preceding is that this subjection is understood as man's salvation, which is achieved in and through Christ. "And since everything that is in Him is saved, and salvation is interpreted by subjection", therefore nothing exists apart from those who are saved²⁰. Here it is speaking about the salvation even of the enemies of God. "Clearly salvation is interpreted by them in terms of subjection"²¹.

Through the assumed and divinised human nature and through the coming resurrection of the dead, when death will be abolished, all will be subjected to God.

Third. Connected with the preceding is the fact that the salvation even of sinners is still interpreted and shown to be the abolition of death and decay, and of the so-called garments of skin. The Apostle Paul says that as a last enemy death will be destroyed (1 Cor. 15, 26). Therefore we too hope that in the end death will be destroyed. Since the divine life passes to all things, "death will completely disappear from being, because sin will previously have disappeared, for it has been said that it is from sin that death acquired authority over men"²².

St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the abolition of death, but also of the subjection of its enemies. This subjection of all, which will happen in Him, will not be compulsory and slavish. This subjection "will not be slavish humiliation, but kingship and incorruption and blessedness"²³. It seems that salvation is not independent of the fact that the enemy still exists. It is not a matter of enforced preservation or loss of volition, but of the restoration of human nature, though not also of the will.

The salvation, then, of sinners means that decay is abolished, since death will disappear and naturally evil will cease to exist, since the sinners will not be able to sin.

At another point he adds that what happens to man happens to the whole creation. Christ said that the Gospel will be preached to the whole world, and this means that "what the word now found in one will also bring blessing to the whole nature of men"²⁴.

Fourth. This is also the sense in which the disappearance of evil is meant. "Subjection to God is complete alienation from evil"²⁵. Clearly here he is speaking of the disappeance of death, which came from sin. When creation is freed from death and decay, God will enter it and be all in all. "It is evident that then it will be confirmed that God is present in all things when no evil is observed among beings"²⁶. This is already happening in the Church which is His Body.

Fifth. Those who are united with Him will themselves live His very life. As to those who, according to the word of the Apostle put away the old man with his deeds and desires and receive the Lord within them, "necessarily he who lives in them does the good work that they do". The ultimate good, which is salvation, comes "through alienation from evil". But we cannot differently separate ourselves from evil if we are not subject to God²⁷. Christ receives to himself all who unite with Him in his Body, which is the Church²⁸.

The thing which St. Gregory of Nyssa wishes to emphasise in this text is, we think, that the last enemy to be destroyed will be death, from the point of view that with the Second Coming of Christ the dead will be raised, the decay and mortality which still exist in creation will be done away with, and Christ will rule in all. All will be presented before His Tribunal, all will recognise Him. In this sense sin, which is the cause of death, will be abolished and all will recognise Him as God. But since choice is not abolished, therefore men, according to their state, will have different experiences of God. Those being healed will experience the illuminating and divinising energy of God, while the sinners will experience the caustic. All will see God, but the righteous will participate, while the sinners will have no share in God. In any case, evil will not exist as an entity. Men will be just what they were during this life.

Therefore, then all will be subject to Christ, and Christ will submit human nature to God the Father. This is beginning to happen now in the Church.

e) Interpretation of St. Gregory of Nyssa by the Fathers of the Church

It is a fact that the saints are understood by the saints. The same thing happens here as happens in science. The scientist of one branch is well understood by a scientist of the same branch. The Apostle Paul writes about this subject: The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned". The natural man, who has not the Holy Spirit, cannot judge the spiritual. The things of the spirit must be judged by spiritual criteria and spiritual men "discerning spiritual things spiritually" (1 Cor. 2, 13-15).

So also the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa should not be judged on the basis of philological analyses, nor on the basis of philosophical thought, but on the basis of the teaching of the holy Fathers of the Church. The fact that the Church characterised St. Gregory as "father of fathers"and regards him as a model of faith and orthodox teaching shows that it interpreted his teaching correctly.

Moreover we have great Fathers who have referred to this teaching. The things that we said previously are true, because they are based on the words of deified men. One is St. Maximus the Confessor and another is St. Mark Eugenicus. We shall start with the one which is chronologically later and then look at how St. Maximus the Confessor interprets St. Gregory of Nyssa's teaching about the restoration.

In their dialogue with the Orthodox about the purifying fire at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, the Latins used texts of St. Gregory of Nyssa as well as other texts. Therefore St. Mark Eugenicus, presenting the orthodox views on this subject in two speeches, overthrew the arguments of the Latins.

Among his other observations, he pointed out two relative passages of St. Gregory of Nyssa. First, that when St. Gregory speaks of the purifying fire he does not at all mean what the Latins teach. The purgatory of the Latins is in the intermediate state of souls and is created, while the purifying fire of St. Gregory of Nyssa is eternal and uncreated. Secondly, St. Maximus the Confessor too speaks of a restoration as St. Gregory of Nyssa understands it. St. Mark says: "But also what comfort St. Maximus contrives with the wonderful Gregory's doctrine of the restoration, we shall set forth completely". And in what follows he quotes the text of St. Maximus the Confessor²⁹. It is significant here to underline that St. Gregory of Nyssa was called "wonderful" by St. Mark Eugenicus.

And after quoting St. Maximus' text, St. Mark, interpreting the words of both saints, concludes that when in ancient teachings the purifying fire is spoken of, it means the eternal fire and not an intermediate state of souls. Clearly the term purifying fire means the eternal fire, that is, more allegorically, the eternal punishments, just as they call light the eternal vision of God in the righteous. Nor in the future life will there be worms and some kind of reptiles, venomous and flesh-eating, but "the torture of punishment by the conscience and that bitter regret". And the gnashing of teeth is the more allegorical expression for the mania of those fighting fiercely, and the grief about it and the bitter lamentation³⁰.

It is in this way that St. Mark Eugenicus interprets the so-called purifying fire of St. Gregory of Nyssa. It concerns the eternal fire which is neither temporary nor created. It is the punishing energy of God, which those who remain unhealed will experience, through their own choice.

Now we shall look at the way in which St. Maximus the Confessor writes about the restoration, as St. Gregory of Nyssa understands it. He says that there are three restorations. The first, that which happens to every person through fulfilling the word of the virtues. The second is the restoration of the whole of nature to incorruptibility and immortality, through the resurrection of Christ. And the third is the restoration of the powers of the soul to the condition in which they were before the fall. St. Gregory of Nyssa means this third restoration, and indeed, as St. Maximus characteristically says, he makes exaggerated use of it. It is not an error, but he developed it more than he should.

In what follows St. Maximus adds that, just as the creation hopes to return to incorruption, the same is true of all the souls. This of course does not mean that all the souls will attain participation in the good things, as the saints will. The souls of the sinners will acquire knowledge of the good things and will be assured that God was not to blame for evil, while they will not attain participation in God"³¹.

It is within the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor that we must look at the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa about the restoration of all things. According to St. Maximus there will be a complete restoration of creation, since by a single infinitely powerful act of God's good will, "He will gather all together, angels and men: the good and the evil". But, although God pervades all things absolutely, not all will have the same relationship with Him. God will gather together into His presence in "eternal well-being the holy angels and the holy men, but in "eternal ill-being"those who are not included in the former³².

Thus even the sinners will be restored in the sense that they will see God, without participating in Him. Father Georges Florovsky, commenting on this view of St. Maximus, says that God will return to the sinners all that they have lost through sin, restoring their souls to the fullness of their natural powers and capacities, without having participation and theurgic communion. They will constantly experience the lack of communion with Him, being aware of the blind alley of the path which they have taken, rejecting the love of God, and in this way they will punish themselves by the distorted movement of their minds³³.

Therefore all men, righteous and sinners, will be restored to "ever-being", but the righteous will have "ever well-being", and the unrighteous "ever ill-being". In the teaching of St. Maximus it seems that "ever well-being"is the "only real ever being"³⁴.

The witnesses and teachings of both St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Mark Engenicus, who are pillars of Orthodoxy, show that the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa concerning the restoration of all things differs clearly from the view of the restoration of all things which we find in ancient philosophy and the Origenist conception, which the Fifth Ecumentical Council condemned.

4. Conclusion

To conclude this chapter we should summarise the most basic points on the subject that we have developed.

First. The teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa concerning the restoration of all things and the purifying fire should be seen within the teaching of St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory the Theologian about Paradise and Hell. One cannot isolate him from the other two saints who are bound together with him by brotherly and friendly ties. Perhaps St. Gregory of Nyssa developed these views further and in philosophical language, answering philosophical questions and problems, but he did not depart from a reality also affirmed by other saints, that is, St. Maximus the Confessor and Mark Eugenicus.

Second. God's love, philanthropy and goodness are His uncreated energy, which will be sent to both the just and the unjust in the future life. But this love will be experienced differently. The righteous will participate in God, while those not cured will see God but have no participation and communion with Him.

Third. Evil will be nonexistent, since even today evil is the absence of good and alienation from it. Night does not exist ontologically, but it is the absence of the sun. When the sun of righteousness appears, then there will be no evil. Death will also be abolished - death from which infinite evils, many passions and sins are produced. The fact that evil will be non-existent does not mean that sinners and uncured souls will not exist. Man's existence is one thing, and another thing is his participation and communion with God, which constitutes true life.

Fourth. At the Second Coming of Christ nature will be restored, but the will will not be restored. All will gain immortality, the bodies of all will rise again, but the will and man's personal opinion will not change. They will continue there too according to the choice with which they lived in their biological life. Even the sinners will have knowledge of God, will see God, but they will not have participation. Punishment is not the absence of God, but non-participation in God, the presence of God as a fire.

Fifth. For those people who have entered the stage of purification before their death, perfecting will continue in the next life as well. Perfection is endless. It has no end and completion. Moreover, human nature is limited, while God is infinite.

Sixth. There is a heretical restoration of all things, as Origen believed and which the Church condemned, and there is an Orthodox restoration of all things, as St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximus the Confessor teach it. According to the latter, all men will recognise God in the Second Coming, but they will not all have a share in God. All will rise again, but they will not all glorify Him. Christ's resurrection is a gift which was given to all, but the ascension will be experienced only by the saints. Therefore in all there will be a restoration of nature, which will remain forever, immortal, but there will not be a restoration of the will, since each person will perceive Christ according to his choice.

St. Gregory of Nyssa's theology concerning the last things, concerning the Kingdom of God, is transluscent and orthodox. It cannot be said that this great Father and theologian follows the heretical teachings of Origen about the restoration of all things, because St. Gregory of Nyssa is organically bound up with the whole orthodox, ecclesiastical tradition.

Thanks to John Sanidopoulos

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/