This paper examines the claim that Gregory of Nazianzus, a fourth-century Cappadocian Father notably influenced by Origen, supported the doctrine of apokatastasis, or universal salvation. A contingent of recent scholarship assumes Nazianzen likely supports apokatastasis by quoting works such as Or. 40.36 and Poemata De Seipso P.G. 37:1010 (Batiffol, Kelly, and von Balthasaar) or associating him with Nyssen (Battifol, Kelly, and Daley). The main conversation partner for this paper is Ilaria Ramelli’s extensive defense of Nazianzen’s support for apokatastasis in her work, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis. While Ramelli furthered the conversation by engaging with an array of Nazianzen’s works, she interprets him through a lens of Origen and Nyssen. This paper argues that his writings, particularly his festal orations in 380–381 (Orations 39, 40, and 38 [Ramelli cites the parallel passage of Or. 45]), do not support a universalistic understanding of salvation when read independently from Origen or Nyssen’s works. Instead, baptism initiates a lasting distinction between the just and the wicked.
The analysis begins by identifying Ramelli’s understanding of apokatastasis in her work and presents Pederson’s critique of Ramelli’s semantic interpretations of chronological terms which she uses to bolster her argument. Then, I present three fundamental assertions for her argument: (1) “Extreme eschatological baptism for those who need it is purifying.” (2) “Physical death is…providential in that it avoids an eternity of sin and therefore also an eternity of punishment.” (3) “Nazianzen overtly speaks of universal apokatastasis when God will be ‘all in all’ and all will be in unity” (Ramelli, 461). By re-examining Nazianzen’s Orations, this paper argues against Ramelli’s assertions that the “baptism of fire” is salvifically purifying, that Nazianzen’s desire for eschatological unity supersedes the necessity of right belief in the Trinity for illumination, and that the universal scope of God’s mercy necessarily implies universal salvation.
I contest claim one’s understanding of the extreme eschatological baptism of fire as purifying by re-examining Oration 39, pointing to its lack of mention in Gregory’s list of five baptisms (Or. 39.17) and highlighting his polemical context against the Novatianist sectarians (McGuckin). The third claim receives a rebuttal when analyzing Oration 40. I reread Or. 40.36 as an acknowledgement of an alternative view rather than an assertion of his own view, which calls into question the certainty of Ramelli’s claim. Ramelli saves her strongest appeal for last in Or. 45 and supports her second claim with it. The passage she cites is copied in Or. 38, which belongs to the Constantinople festal series. While Gregory asserts that death ends the accumulation of sin, I emphasize the implications of Gregory’s baptismal theology to present an interpretation that does not negate the eternality of the punishment.