Hamartology in A Short History of Universal Reconciliation
Stephen E. Jones — b9
Jones presents in this history of Universal Reconciliation an early-church understanding of sin and evil rooted in Platonic philosophy—evil as non-being and refinement through purifying fire. His hamartological position acknowledges that evil is not substantive but an absence of good (privatio boni), and that divine wrath functions as purification rather than retribution. This stands in sharp contrast to later juridical theology.
Evil as Non-Being
The central hamartological category in Jones’s work is the classical formula privatio boni—evil as the privation or absence of good.
“Evil will pass over into non-existence; it will disappear utterly from the realm of existence. Divine and uncompounded goodness will encompass within itself every rational creature.” — Gregory of Nyssa, commentary on 1Cor. 15:28
Gregory of Nyssa, whom Jones holds in high regard, argues that in the eschatological fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15:28 (“God all in all”), evil will literally pass out of existence because it has no inherent reality—only the absence of good. This hamartological insight grounds Nyssa’s universalism: because evil possesses no substantive being, it cannot ultimately stand against God’s all-encompassing reign.
“God will be ‘in all’ only when no trace of evil is to be found in anything.” — Gregory of Nyssa
This formulation directly connects hamartology (the nature of sin/evil) with eschatology and soteriology. No trace of evil can coexist with God’s perfect presence; therefore all rational creatures must ultimately be healed.
Divine Wrath as Purification
A second hamartological theme is that divine wrath is purificatory rather than punitive in nature—a motif that characterizes the controversy surrounding Origen and his heirs.
“Wrath and indignation operate solely to our purification.” — Novatian of Rome (ca. 250 AD)
Novatian, cited here by Jones, articulates the principle: God’s wrath serves no purpose except purification. This distinction—between punitive (Roman-juridical) and purificatory-transformative (Greek-theological) interpretations of divine disapproval—marks for Jones the ideological rupture between universalist and anti-universalist factions in the early church.
Jones documents that by the fourth century universalism was broadly accepted among Greek-speaking fathers (the Alexandrian school), partly because their hamartological model—sin as absence and purification as transformation—was psychologically and theologically coherent with the divine goal of perfection.
Evil of the Devil and His Angels
A third hamartological crux determining early conflicts is whether the devil and his angels could be saved—a hamartological intersection with angelology.
Jones notes that Epiphanius in 394 AD issued the first official censure of Universalism, “specifically targeting the salvation of the devil and his angels.” This censure point exposes the hamartological crisis: is evil (equated with the devil and his power) intrinsically irredeemable, or merely a functional depravity that divine intervention can heal?
The universalist tradition answered that even the devil, as a rational creature, could be refined by purifying fire (the lake of fire in Rev. 20:15). However, this position drew reaction from church fathers (and later church leadership) for whom the devil was an irrevocable counterpower against God—a substantive anti-deity, not merely the absence of good.
Doctrinal Transformation
Jones establishes that the definitive condemnation of universalism under Justinian (Council of 553 AD, Anathema IX) coincided with a hamartological presupposition-shift: from privatio boni (“evil as absence”) to substantialism (“evil as independent power”). This shift undermined universalism’s foundation, because if evil genuinely exists, it cannot simply vanish.
Jones’s crucial insight is that this shift was not sustained by scriptural or patristic consensus but by political power movements (from Alexandrian to Roman hegemony) and episcopal jealousy. Hamartology—what we understand about the nature of sin—was therefore determined not by theological grounds but by power.
Bibliographic Notes
Jones refers to Hosea Ballou’s The Ancient History of Universalism (1829) for documentation that universalism was orthodox in the early church. The hamartological paradigm (privatio boni + purifying fire) sustained this universalism until institutional church politics undermined it.