Since the Lord God is the Alpha and Omega of every eternal sequence, you should trust God to correctly deal with the eternal sequence of Hell.

Best Regards,

Frank Hatch
FrankHatchiii.com

Ok, so it is not metempsychosis. But the reuse of the same (but improved) body does not prevent the resurrection from involving reincarnation. One is de-incarnated at death and “reincarnated” (incarnated again) at the resurrection. But, as Evagrius notes, this is probably a terminological rather than substantive argument.

Is not the bodily resurrection “reincarnation” in its purest form?

the patristic consensus, and not an individual Father, is considered unerring. Saint Gregory is overruled by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Pre-existence, re-incarnation, and re-storation are all condemned by this Coucil (unless You’ld also want to say, for instance, that only certain kinds of metempsihosis are condemned, while others are acceptable, or other such nonsense).

“If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.”

Note that it only condems the resotration that FOLLOWS from the “fabulous prexistence of souls”. It DOESN’T condem all restorations only those specificaly connected with pre-existence. It also says nothing to the effect that those who do not believe that hell is everlasting are anathema. Obviously they wouldn’t condem the resoration beleived by Saint Gregory of Nyssa whom an eccumenical council proclaimed the “father of fathers”.

**There is actually some debate as to if this was actually a finding of the council though

Bless, master!

Many thanks for your helpful comment. It is truly an honor to have your participation on this blog.

As you will see, I clearly state: “The teaching on universal salvation, which is so explicitly preached by Isaac the Syrian, has never been approved by the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, Origenist idea of the apokatastasis ton panton (restoration of all), which has certain resemblance with this teaching, was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council”.

Then I try to explain the difference between St Isaac and Origen: “However, we would not completely identify Isaac’s idea of the universal salvation with Origenist ‘restoration of all’. In Origen, universal restoration is not the end of the world, but a passing phase from one created world to another, which will come into existence after the present world has come to its end. This idea is alien to Christian tradition and unknown to Isaac. The latter is more dependent on other ancient writers, notably Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus, who also developed the idea of universal salvation, yet in a way different from Origen’s. On the other hand, it would not be fair to say that Isaac simply borrowed the ideas of his predecessors and inserted them into his own writings. Isaac’s eschatological optimism and his belief in universal salvation are ultimate outcomes of his personal theological vision, whose central idea is that of God as love. Around this idea the whole of his theological system is shaped”.