Apocatastasis

"Of what a nature is the resurrection! And the image must rise again through the image. The bridegroom and the image must enter through the image into the truth, which is the apocatastasis."

– The Gospel of Philip

Apocatastasis: Restoration.

This was an interesting idea in theology, the idea of universal salvation; that at some point everything will be reconciled with the Divine. I have been doing rather a lot of prayer and reflection on this topic recently, focussing on the following questions;

Is this a Gnostic idea?
Certainly the Gnostic authors of Philip thought so.

If gnosis is critical for salvation (from ignorance), do all ultimately attain gnosis?
Obviously the complement arises: if those without gnosis are saved, then gnosis is not in fact necessary for salvation.

And if all do not ultimately attain gnosis, does this mean that those who do not are not saved?
Well obviously. Just drawing out the logic here.

We do not have the "out" of literalist reincarnation available to Buddhism and Hinduism; the idea of reincarnation is a little to "convenient" and doesn't allow for the non-linear nature of time, and smacks of speciational and societal chauvinism (It's always "I was a farmer in 17th century Ireland", never "I was a ground squirrel in Saskatoon in the thirties"). Therefore we do not literally see those who die in ignorance stepping back on the wheel to try again. And given that gnosis requires the capacity for critical reflection, what of those who die in infancy?

And if all can not attain gnosis, say, for example, the mentally disabled, asthmatics, or the Dutch, and therefore they are not saved, does this make Gnosticism elitist?

Could such elitism erode compassion, and our obligation to compassion?

And of course, if gnosis is not in fact necessary for salvation from ignorance and restoration with the Pleroma, then what is it for?

In Christianity, apocatastasis is more commonly known as universalism, and is a heresy. After all, if all are saved anyway, what's with all this Church stuff? The very idea is bad for business. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The brilliant Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, while admitting that doctrine was doctrine, held out hope for universal salvation. He found solace in Hegelian dialectics, which basically states said that everything outside God is a problem, therefore all our thoughts are flawed anyway, so what do we know? Certainty has uncertainty in its DNA. Balthasar hoped that the redemptive statements in the Christian Gospels would serve to counteract the various decrees of eternal damnation; and felt that it was one's compassionate duty to do so. His position is thoroughly bludgeoned by uncharitable orthodoxy, however, which clearly states that hoping the Church might be wrong about something is pretty much drilling holes in the boat.

My entire line of questioning stems from an assumption that the fundamental role of gnosis is soteriological; as though gnosis were a train ticket, no fare, no ride. Perhaps a better line of inquiry stems from identifying gnosis itself with apocatastasis: real enlightenment is reconciliation with the Divine.

Clearly calls for more research, and reflection. Damn my lack of education!

Update
This came to me last night: my instinct agrees with considerable chunks of Gnostic Scripture, that upon death all are reunited with the Divine. So perhaps that gnosis is the only way – or maybe jus a way – to experience such reunion while still alive. My thinking here is fuzzy, but at least my gut is getting a compass reading.