It should be called "that all may be saved". At least then the title of the book would hold to a soteriological truth. Instead it has the very unfortunate title "that all shall be saved".

Well, that's the arguent of someone that doesn't have a real argument.

There's no implication in Christ's words, because that was not a prophecy, but a warning about an end dependent on certain conditions. It's like the warning of the scientists about the climate change: if we don't stop destroying and polluting the planet, there will be terrible disasters, destruction, suffering and even global scale extinction of most species of animals, including humans (on this matter, we can see Rev 11: 18).

There was too much in this episode to critique given the (valuable) time it would take. You're absolutely correct in your assessment of the 'podfathers' summarily dismissing real and serious scholarship about Origen, St. Gregory Nyssa, and the 5th Ecumenical Council. Their attitude in this episode is more 'lobotomized fundamentalism' than honest reasoning and real engagement with the Fathers (and Scripture for that matter).

@@stephenbrannen absolutely agree. On another note, I also find it incredibly distasteful to hear an orthodox priest speak in such an authoritative manner, devoid of humility or compassion in a public forum. This is yet another example of “reformed orthodoxy” at its best.

​@@user-rj5nc3bt4c I went into the podcast with a pretty high opinion of fr. De Young, which is why I'm pained to say this is one of the worst takes against apokatastasis I've heard in a while. Strawmen upon strawmen of positions virtually no one holds. And the arrogance... Man, it was tough to listen to. I've responded to some of the points fr. De Young makes, but I doubt he'd care.

Huh?

I'm only going to address a couple of things, as there's a lot hinging on the misunderstanding of them. 1: "As for God not forcing His love on people... This is really one of the most bizarre takes, and I hear it everywhere, but it really makes no sense. If I save my child from the coming traffic, though they willingly step on the road without looking, am I being unloving? Christ going to find the lost sheep, and turning the house over for the lost coin... should be unloving then." First of all, I'd recommend looking into who those "lost sheep" represent and what "the lost coin" represents in those parables, as it appears it's not what you think. You're not really giving a good example here that fits the narrative, at all, especially then applying your inappropriate example and equating it to Christ and his parables, as if it's a clear comparison, when it's not even remotely close. You're equating an unknowing, premature being (a child) being saved by his caretaker to the love of God being forced upon someone and these are not comparable, which goes to show that you're not understanding the premise. The entire premise is the fact that you (and every one of us, for that matter) have a CHOICE that you make (which means that you're capable of making a choice, have sufficient knowledge to make a choice and are culpable for your choice, so you're definitely not on a child-like level), it's not "mistakenly running into the street and being saved by X", it's "willingly living in rebellion despite the loving efforts of X". You're mentioning addicts so let me try and put in a way you'll probably get it - you seem to miss the fact that, at the end of the day, the only one that actually is responsible for the "salvation" (in quotes as I don't mean the actual salvation of his soul, but simply to the turning away from his addiction) of the addict is the addict himself - No amount of external effort or love will ever change an addict, unless the addict realizes what's going on and WILLINGLY goes through the necessary journey to being clean and remaining clean, whatever that might be in his individual case. You can be the catalyst that causes the addict to REALIZE what's happening and be an instrument of God for his salvation, but in the end, you cannot force the proper change, you can only take the necessary actions that you think will help and pray the addict eventually comes to his senses. You can take his drugs away, you can forcibly put him in rehab, but you cannot stop him from going back to his ways as soon as that is possible and continuing on the path of destruction, despite everyone around telling him that and despite the fact that most-likely, he himself is already aware of that. So, with that being said and the example at hand, do you think it would be the "loving" thing to do to lock him in rehab forever? Or does there come a point in time where he has a choice to make for himself, despite your best efforts? Is that then a person who is "blameless" and "unknowing" as you tried to put it in your example? Or is that someone who is "willingly in rebellion"? I hope this helps put things into the proper perspective, as the example you tried to equate is really just a "I'm blameless and unknowing" when it's actually "I know enough and I am culpable for my actions" - In fact, that's what the Bible is clearly teaching, none of us are blameless or unknowing, after a certain point of maturity (Jesus being the sole exception to the blameless part, as He is the only one who lived a life of perfect obedience and is the exemplar we strive to follow). So, God being loving, yet leaving rebellious and unrepentant people to their ways, after doing everything in His power to guide them back to the truth without completely imposing His will and overriding theirs (which would be the tyrannical thing to do, if you think about it for a second), is absolutely the natural result and in no way in odds with Gods' character or with what Love is or a "bizarre" take. I see how this is a problem for you due to point 2, which to me is the actual bizarre take. 2: "I never asked to have a fallen nature. I want it taken away, that's my free will, right? I don't want to be an addict, a glutton, a liar, and a cheat. Yet I lie, I get addicted, I overeat. Am I in any way free? Of course not. So the free will defence of some kind of eternal torment (ECT or not) or something simply doesn't work." Yes, and? What are you going to do about it? Complain? Or act all powerless and blameless again? That's like the "I didn't ask to be born" complains from kids going through puberty. If you don't believe in free will, then there's really no reason to even do anything in life, ever. Of course the defense doesn't work when you deny the entire premise, lol. A premise, by the way, which is a core biblical teaching and can be seen all the way back in Genesis and throughout the entire Bible, so at this point, why even argue anything at all, if free will doesn't exist and you're not in any way free? Why watch this podcast, at all? Why would anyone ever be punished OR rewarded for that matter, if no one was ever capable of making any sort of tangible free choice about anything? Neither heaven nor hell/the lake of fire make any sense if that's what you believe. As written above, nothing really makes sense if that's what you believe. The entire comment screams calvinistic confusion to me, which is the natural result of being under that viewpoint or being heavily influenced by it, so I kind of get it.

@@Lessonius Hey, thank you for your response! My comparison between the love of God to that of the love of parents, is exactly that we cannot talk about God forcing His love onto someone. This, as a concept, is nonsensical. I'd go as far as saying that nowhere in the Bible has this ever been a concern. But what has been? We are, in fact, compared to children over and over. We are compared to dumb animals, to fools, to sick folks, to slaves, to captives, etc. We are in that addiction-ridden fallen condition, where we are not all that free. Sure, even a slave and an animal have some freedom, but how much exactly? This isn't a calvinist take in my opinion. I am also not saying that we do not have a choice. Do we have responsibility for our current condition? Sure. But how much can we do outside of Christ? Many saints belabor the fact that it is all Christ's doing, not theirs. St. Anthony fights demons by crying out about his weakness. Not to mention the story of the drunk monk that St. Paisios told. Again, fighting... That matters. It matters that we struggle. But I also see a lot of people damaged so much, that if God doesn't heal them, there ain't no way for them to do anything about it. Sheep are... well, sheep. Regardless of whom Christ was talking about, Christ went out of His way to go pick up the dumb-ish animal and bring it back. It doesn't matter who this is talking about, because the fact remains that some free will got the sheep in trouble, and it got out of it not by its free will. While I can talk a lot about addiction, it's a problem that you either get, or you don't. If you've been there, you know. Just as the demoniac folks weren't throwing themselves into fire, because they were super free. As for love not changing the addict. Well... I beg to differ. Not only does love change them, it seems to be the only thing that can do that. Addicts that break free without love soon find themselves in another addiction. Maybe this time it's just an obsession, and it seems healthier, but it is addiction nonetheless. I know a few who went from drugs to super healthy eating. The second ultimately became their obsession. Not great either. By the way, you can change the word "addict" with "demoniac" and go at it again in your addiction paragraph. People are captives, they need to be set free. God does that. Now, I'm not saying all addicts will be helped like that. Some of Christ's followers could not drive out all demons. But I am saying that sin is its own addiction, of which we need to be free. And yes, some addicts and sinners are beyond our help. They are "obstinate". But when I look at them, I don't feel "God will rightfully judge them", I pray "God have mercy on us, sinners". Regardless, I never claimed that I am blameless and unknowing. I only claim what the saints claim - without Christ, we are incapable of anything. And it will by no means feel somehow unjust if God saves people post-mortem. If you are Orthodox, then I want to remind you that the Theotokos lived a sinless life as well, but not of her own accord. On your other point: "Yes, and? What are you going to do about it? Complain? Or act all powerless and blameless again? That's like the "I didn't ask to be born" complains from kids going through puberty. " That doesn't answer the question though. You seem to think I don't believe in free will, which is not true. I am only asking, if it is about free will, why not respect my free will to have my free will aligned with God's will? "Why would anyone ever be punished OR rewarded for that matter, if no one was ever capable of making any sort of tangible free choice about anything? Neither heaven nor hell/the lake of fire make any sense if that's what you believe." Sin is its own punishment. Following Christ - its own reward. If someone pushes me, and I break my arm, it still hurts, regardless of fault. Me being a sinner is hurtful to my own self. Me following Christ is healing. Now if you think my view doesn't make sense, wait untill you hear that I do believe that universalism, annihilationism, and eternal torment are all true, in their own sense. :D Make of that what you will.

​@@atanas-nikolov A child remains a child to a parent, regardless of age, I think that's pretty straight-forward - Do not confuse the fact that the scriptures address us as children and such to mean that we've got no responsibility or ability to act and be culpable for our actions or again, that we're not free to do as we decide to. Sheep are by no means dumb animals, there's a reason sheep and goats are contrasted by our Lord - It's because sheep are obedient, beneficial, they contribute to their owners by providing both wool and milk (that can be made to different other things, like clothes, cheese, etc.), they live in packs, obey their shepherds and recognize their voice and their voice only. Goats in comparison are the animals which provide very little, they're disobedient and self-driven. That's why I said you should look into what the parables are actually saying, because you're not getting what the Lord is trying to convey and responding by saying "I don't care what the parables mean and who they're talking about" whilst self-imposing meaning is frankly dubious. You're mentioning Saints, but you don't care to know what the Lord Himself means? "As for love not changing the addict." - That's not what I said. I said that no amount can UNWILLINGLY change the addict, the addict still is the one who needs to respond to said love, you're twisting my words quite strongly there. "While I can talk a lot about addiction, it's a problem that you either get, or you don't. If you've been there, you know. Just as the demoniac folks weren't throwing themselves into fire, because they were super free." Yeah, because we all get demonized/addicted "by accident" ... You're looking at the consequences and completely ignoring the cause - a choice or multiple choices that led there, just like how you have to CHOOSE CHRIST. The exact same can be said when looking at the consequences of being a Saint, but for some reason we're ignoring that, because that's the beneficial version? It's a choice that led them there, just like it's a choice that led the demoniac/addict/etc. there and in some cases, it could've been a choice done by his/her ancestors or family members which affects them too, due to the nature of "making deals with the devil", but demonology is a different topic that doesn't need to be discussed now. "If you are Orthodox, then I want to remind you that the Theotokos lived a sinless life as well, but not of her own accord." - Not of her own accord? So God overrode her free will? She wasn't the one who chose to live in accordance to the grace given to her and keep herself pure? She didn't willingly consent to being the Mother of God when St. Gabriel came? She didn't struggle to live that kind of life? That's what you're implying. This is a great place to bring up the fact that the Theotokos is directly contrasted to Eve. Eve could've rejected the serpent. St. Mary could've rejected St. Gabriel. Eve chose rebellion. St. Mary chose obedience. Both had free will, both had external influence of Angels and both went in different directions, none of them were forced to choose what they did and both bore the consequences of their choice. "Regardless, I never claimed that I am blameless and unknowing. I only claim what the saints claim - without Christ, we are incapable of anything. And it will by no means feel somehow unjust if God saves people post-mortem." - Anything at all? Or anything in the sense of anything beneficial/salvific? Obviously, there's a nuance there, as we both know all of us are capable of many things, even without Christ. What those things are in the scale of "good/bad" is a different question and that's what the Saints mean, again it seems like misunderstanding what is being said. The gospel was preached to all the dead during the harrowing of Hades, how those dead respond to it is up to them or did Jesus force them to obey Him? Scripture tells us that everyone will be judged justly and that everyone will have had a choice to know Christ or not. The intricacies on how that exactly works is not made known to us nor do we need to know, but according to what is written, no one ends up in Heaven/the new Earth or in Hell/the lake "by mistake" or "on accident", that much is made very, very clear. So any attempt to take away our agency and responsibility is in direct opposition to scripture, despite what will is behind it. "That doesn't answer the question though. You seem to think I don't believe in free will, which is not true. I am only asking, if it is about free will, why not respect my free will to have my free will aligned with God's will?" And who/what makes you think that isn't happening? Do we forget there's an enemy in play too? Almost everything you initially wrote goes to show that you indeed do not believe in free will or in some sort of calvinistic version of free will, which doesn't end up being free in any real sense of the word. Your will is directly linked to your actions - enacting your will is an action. As was talked about in this podcast, repentance is directly linked to actions - actions that should be aligned to reversing/compensating for your previous actions that had negative impact to you and everyone around you. Once you're dead, your ability to act upon the world, upon yourself and upon those around you changes and is no longer the same, hence why post-mortem personal repentance is not possible, among other reasons that might also be in play as we simply do not have enough info about what being dead entails in detail. You want people to repent post-mortem? Pray for them. Repent for them. Go and do what they weren't able to while they were still here.

1). ('guilt by association with Calvinism' arguments, confusing extrinsically imposed necessity with necessity that flows from God's nature, etc.) The irony here is that you object to association with Calvinism, then literally repeat the distinction Calvinists use to defend themselves on this very point when it comes to penal substitution, etc. On several episodes, I've pointedly critiqued these arguments as made by Calvinists. When DBH makes the same argument in favor of universalism, I'm not supposed to critique it? Or I'm not supposed to point out that he's making the same error they are? 2) Having read extensively in the works of Philo of Alexandria, I can assure you that at no point does Philo call the God of the Hebrew Bible a monster, immoral, evil, or a tribal fetish. I can also assure you that he never denies that that God, the one he worshipped, exists. So you've chosen a pretty bad counter-example. I don't know DBH personally, I would assume that he at least doesn't consider himself to be an anti-Semite, but he is following, and publishing in, a theological tradition that runs through 18th and 19th century Germany which holds pre-suppositions that are deeply anti-semitic. Every word he says about the "Old Testament God" he is saying about the God worshipped and loved by Jewish people, after all, and worshipped by Christianity since the beginning. This is why his critique of the "Old Testament God" bleeds over into a belittling, if not outright condemnation of the Church Fathers. In the end, I was far kinder and more careful with him than he ever is with anyone, including great saints of the Church to which he occasionally still claims to belong.

Hi Fr. De Young, Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough reply to my comment. A few thoughts in reply: 1) I'm not sure what you mean in relating the extrinsic/intrinsic necessity distinction to penal substitution specifically. Can you clarify? My purpose in pointing to this vital distinction was simply this: Every Christian, Calvinist or not, must accept that in *some* sense God's nature necessitates (intrinsically, not extrinsically) that He act in certain ways, and not others. God of necessity, for ex., could never command rape. Not because there's some extrinsic law or criterion beyond God that constrains Him in this way, but simply because God is The Good Itself. Similarly, simply because of Who God Is, He cannot fail to fulfill His promises. When universalists claim God "of necessity" saves all, this is the sense in which it is generally meant: that simply because of Who God Is, in relation to who we are as beings who cannot find our rest until we rest in Him, the salvation of all is inevitable. This is *not* the sense of 'necessity' that implies God is compelled by some extrinsic criterion or law. Now, you may still disagree with this particular claim. All I'm saying is that it's not an inherently 'Calvinistic' claim, and associating it therewith I think just diverts from what the real, fundamental issues at stake are. 2) I trust you're correct about Philo here. I've read much of him, but I'm sure not as much as you have. My point in bringing up Philo was this: He, like many Church Fathers after him, finds certain passages of Scripture unworthy of God *if read in a woodenly literal way* (God 'coming down' to see what humanity is upto with their Babel project, walking in the Garden, having a fit of drunken rage, etc.). I disagree with how Hart expresses this point, but I do think he's really just observing the same thing: We would all say, for ex., that it's unworthy of God, and He'd be a merely pagan and morally compromised deity, if He really repented, had burning hot rage, had to be reminded of His promises, and other anthropomorphic and anthropopathic properties attributed to Him in Scripture. A Supreme God who *literally* has these properties does not exist. But the God who is portrayed in Scripture via these human condescensions does indeed exist (I assume Hart would agree, but I can't speak for him of course --- and again, I wouldn't want to defend everything he says). 3) I see what you're saying, but I think it's a stretch to say "X is influenced by scholars who had certain anti-semitic views and motivations" implies "the arguments/views of X are inherently anti-semitic." It's also painting with a broad brush to say that "Jewish people" as such understand their Scriptures, and worship God, in a way dependent on thinking God is never portrayed in ways unworthy of Him at the purely literal level. At any rate, I do very much appreciate your response here, and I sincerely love and thank you for all the great work you're doing through this podcast and in other ways ("Religion of the Apostles" was excellent!).

​@@benjamincook711 I agree this was a rare miss for what otherwise is an excellent podcast. I don't get what's so complicated about these questions. Universalists aren't trying to "judge God" or impose an extrinsic necessity on Him; they're just trying to understand what it means to say "God is The Good, God is Justice, God is Mercy, God is omnipotent, God is Father, etc" in the context of eschatology. Fr. De Young seemed sympathetic, if a bit condescending, towards people who honestly cannot reconcile the possibility of a loved one's eternal condemnation with an all loving God, so I don't get why a more intellectual version of that intuition deserves so much disdain.

@@chewdog91 Agreed. Even if one is not confident in the salvation of all at the end of the day, surely the only Christlike attitude to the question is that of St. Silouan when replying to the hermit who expressed joy the damned would get their just deserts: "Love could not bear that, we must pray for all."

@@benjamincook711 Who expressed any joy at damnation? That's a heck of an accusation.

I mean... have you ever listened to DBH talk about people who hold to different theological opinions than he does, by chance? I honestly think DBH brings a lot of the animosity on himself by how personal he gets towards his opponents, attacking not only the theological opinions of people he disagrees with but their character, their intelligence, and their sense of morality as well. Fr. Stephen didn't go that far. I mean yeah he criticized the academic intellectual class that DBH is a part of, but that isn't unique to only one individual.

@@harrygarris6921 yes but DBH isn’t an ordained priest. I don’t think it’s too much to expect that an Orthodox priest present himself and represent his position with more pious humility as opposed to aggressive, inconsiderate pridefulness. Especially when that position is based on a total misunderstanding of the position in the first place.

Lots of fulfilling of Fr. Steven's prophecy here in the comments.