Can Universalism be Christian?

[alexandriaisburning]

I feel that it is not "gracious" to tell another poster that he believes what he does on these kinds of matters ONLY because that's what he's been told to think by someone else.

To be clear, I never said that it was *only* because of indoctrination. My intention was to merely express what--in my experience--is the predominant reason for the theological positions that people hold. If you believe yourself to be an exception to that, very well.

However, I would nonetheless argue that the general principle I suggested regarding the interpretive justifications that people make (including myself, of course!) is still valid and applicable in the vast majority of cases. And even if you believe that you have arrived at your opinions via independent study, I would still suggest that you are by no means immune to the influences of the interpretative traditions that have been a part of your theological formation.

And that is undeniably what was written. It's also untrue in my case, but that didn't matter to him.

It's not that it doesn't matter to me; it's more that I am suggesting general principles that apply, not necessarily analyzing you as an individual. I should have, perhaps, used more generic language.

 

[Hillsage]

Apparently, you feel this way mainly because you agree with the comment you've bolded in the following part of your post.

You are absolutely correct. That's just how it works generally. Unless, and I've never heard you say this, "I heard a voice from heaven which was God, telling me eternal hell is the truth."

I feel that it is not "gracious" to tell another poster that he believes what he does on these kinds of matters ONLY because that's what he's been told to think by someone else. And that is undeniably what was written. It's also untrue in my case, but that didn't matter to him.

Since he was stating what, he has since confirmed, is absolutely true of all of us I'd say; no harm no foul intented. Given the adversarial nature of most of your 'sides' posters toward us, I'd still say he has been very gracious indeed. And I'd also say I've seen more gracious from you, toward us, over the recent years Albion. And it's not because 'you agree', I know you don't. But at least you've rendered an attitude of understanding 'why' we believe as we do. And your attitude now is actually a disappointing surprise to me. But don't worry, I'll get over it.

 

[Albion]

To be clear, I never said that it was *only* because of indoctrination. My intention was to merely express what--in my experience--is the predominant reason for the theological positions that people hold.

If that's the case, I would think that you'd have said exactly that instead of making it personal and absolute.

 

[Albion]

You are absolutely correct. That's just how it works generally. Unless, and I've never heard you say this, "I heard a voice from heaven which was God, telling me eternal hell is the truth."

Since he was stating what, he has since confirmed, is absolutely true of all of us I'd say; no harm no foul intented. Given the adversarial nature of most of your 'sides' posters toward us, I'd still say he has been very gracious indeed.

I can see that your own idea that you are on someone's "side" dictated your remarks. That put it into perspective for me.

Not realizing that fact initially had me wondering how anyone could think that an unequivocal and unprovoked accusation like the one we're discussing could be thought to be "very gracious." I could imagine someone calling it non-confrontational, but "very gracious?" That's a bad joke at best.

Anyway, we have that settled now.

 

[Hillsage]

I can see that your own idea that you are on someone's "side" dictated your remarks. That put it into perspective for me.

And I can see that your eyes need an adjustment. If you don't know me better than that by now, you disappoint me again.

Not realizing that fact initially had me wondering how anyone could think that an unequivocal and unprovoked accusation like the one we're discussing could be thought to be "very gracious." I could imagine someone calling it non-confrontational, but "very gracious?" That's a bad joke at best.

Anyway, we have that settled now.

"Eye of the beholder", is all I can say. And, I agree 'enuf said'.

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[Basil the Great]

It seems to be generally accepted by most Catholics, Orthodox and the more liberal Protestant bodies there is nothing wrong in hoping that all mankind will be saved, as long as we do not profess that such will happen. However, it appears that most Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants (and likewise most Ultra Traditional Catholics) would probably consider such a hope to be bordering on heresy, if not outright heresy, since the New Testament teaches that only Christians will be saved.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

However, it appears that most Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants (and likewise most Ultra Traditional Catholics) would probably consider such a hope to be bordering on heresy, if not outright heresy, since the New Testament teaches that only Christians will be saved.

By "the New Testament teaches", of course, you mean, "they interpret the New Testament to teach"...

 

[[serious]]

It seems to be generally accepted by most Catholics, Orthodox and the more liberal Protestant bodies there is nothing wrong in hoping that all mankind will be saved, as long as we do not profess that such will happen. However, it appears that most Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants (and likewise most Ultra Traditional Catholics) would probably consider such a hope to be bordering on heresy, if not outright heresy, since the New Testament teaches that only Christians will be saved.

Does it though?

From Romans:
11I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

1st Timothy:
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.


While some interpretations of the New Testament suggest select salvation, it must be remembered that it is just that, interpretation. other interpretations suggest universalism. So if a subject is open to multiple interpretations, would that not be one of those disputable matters we are not to quarrel over?

 

[Hillsage]

By "the New Testament teaches", of course, you mean, "they interpret the New Testament to teach"...

GREAT word alex, the greatest discoveries are sometimes found in the smallest details of truth.

 

[twin.spin]

UR is a false gospel hope for those who Jesus says

"if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins"​

and who Jesus says:

"whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven;"​

and who Jesus says:

"whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."​

 

[Bob Carabbio]

It says in 1 Timothy 2:4(God) desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

It also says in 1 John 5:14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

So, why not pray for everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth?

We do.

 

[[serious]]

UR is a false gospel hope for those who Jesus says

"if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins"​

and who Jesus says:

"whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven;"​

and who Jesus says:

"whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."​

I think it breaks down to two questions:
1. Could universalism be right?
2. Is nailing the rules for salvation a requirement of salvation?

Now, number one is tricky, as views of the afterlife are very varied through the bible and church history.

Number two is a bit easier. Nowhere in the bible does it say that your view of the afterlife is a salvation risking issue. If it were, large swaths of the faithful would be cut out of heaven (Sorry sadducees) despite trying to faithfully follow God. Making such an issue a salvation issue is actually probably a riskier prospect since, as the bible says, by your own measure you will be judged. If you say universalists aren't christian because they messed up a detail of the afterlife, you'd better be absolutely spot on. You don't want to get to the gates and have St Peter sitting there saying, "oh, sorry, purgatory is totally a thing, and by your standard, that means no heaven for you!"