Universalism: pros and cons

[Tavita]

I don't doubt there are universalists who accept the Nicene Creed. I have personally talked to universalists who don't accept that creed. So to say that you all accept that creed is just not true.

Sure, there are universalists who don't hold to the creed. Were they christian universalists or unitarian universalists? Do they not hold to the creed for the simple fact it is a creed and they don't hold to creeds in general, or is it because they don't believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Or... do they think there is more to the Godhead than just the three? There's a whole bunch of reasons why people don't like the creeds. I didn't actually say that ALL universalists hold to the creed... seems like we have been unclear in what we have said and misunderstood on both sides in the last page or so of posting.

 

[Rajni]

In Christ I am able to judge on each contact what is heretical.

That's what they thought they were doing in Galileo's case, too.

This exactly true, then that you are saying that there is a disunity of belief among those who claim "Universalist" as their doctrine.

"Universalist" isn't a doctrine. It's a label. Just wanted to clear that up.

There's disunity of belief among those who claim "Christianity" as their label, as well. There's disunity of belief among the sub-categories within Christianity. If a lack of unity within a particular label were to be taken as a red-flag, we would all have to avoid Christianity. If people didn't question that unity from time to time, there would have been no Protestant Reformation.

Yes, Universalism lends to confusion and chaos. The devil's doing, of course.

I asked this previously, but no one responded. If confusion is always the devil's doing, why hasn't anyone insisted on having a resident exorcist in algebra classes? Because that stuff is confusing!

______________________________​

"For as in Adam all die, ​

so in Christ all will be made alive." ​

~ 1 Corinthians 15:22 ~​

 

[Zecryphon]

We get this thrown at us all the time, Z.. that what we believe is just our opinions... now you're saying I have no right to say the same thing regarding the opposing belief. Who said it was disregarded anyway? I read the articles.. and I've read them before. But I'm not going to BOTHER disputing them because it's just a waste of time... how many threads has there been so far?? How much understanding has been gained on either side? I'm still waiting for the formal debate, pity there are no takers yet for the eternal torment side.

"We get this thrown at us all the time, Z.. that what we believe is just our opinions... now you're saying I have no right to say the same thing regarding the opposing belief."

As do we, by universalists like you. I didn't say you didn't have the right to say something. I said the reason you gave, of it being just one man's opinion, is not really a good reason for dismissing the article. That's all I've said and now you wanna say I've said things about you I haven't said? It's that kind of personal crap that keeps getting these threads shut down. Just stick to what people say instead of what you think they say, and this goes for everybody, and these threads just might stay open.

"Who said it was disregarded anyway?"

I think your yawning smiley kinda gave it away that you did not take that article too seriously and when you said "that's just one man's opinion" and offered nothing more, that's seen as dismissive.

"I read the articles.. and I've read them before. But I'm not going to BOTHER disputing them because it's just a waste of time... how many threads has there been so far??"

Oh a bunch and they always get closed down because they always turn personal on both sides.

"How much understanding has been gained on either side? I'm still waiting for the formal debate, pity there are no takers yet for the eternal torment side."

Formal debates suck, they really do. People like to come in and tell others what they think and move on. A formal debate is not as "fast-paced" as this is, and will be a giant bore to a lot of people. That's why nobody's doing it and why you see so few of them in CF. Everybody prefers this method of communication to formal debate.

 

[Tavita]

In Christ I am able to judge on each contact what is heretical. {/quote}

FA.. in Christ I am able to judge on each contact what is heretical too.. That's an easy thing to say.

[quote}This exactly true, then that you are saying that there is a disunity of belief among those who claim "Universalist" as their doctrine.

Yes, Universalism lends to confusion and chaos. The devil's doing, of course. He influences the minds of men by introducing revelations of false "light". Be aware.

And therein lies the problem... Christian Universalism is not a denomination and you are trying to treat it as one. It's usually a core belief that one comes to while you are 'inside' a denomination. Would you say the confusion and chaos around the time of Luther's reformation was of the devil? Universalism only becomes confusing and chaotic to those who aren't universalists..

 

[Zecryphon]

Sure, there are universalists who don't hold to the creed. Were they christian universalists or unitarian universalists? Do they not hold to the creed for the simple fact it is a creed and they don't hold to creeds in general, or is it because they don't believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Or... do they think there is more to the Godhead than just the three? There's a whole bunch of reasons why people don't like the creeds. I didn't actually say that ALL universalists hold to the creed... seems like we have been unclear in what we have said and misunderstood on both sides in the last page or so of posting.

"Sure, there are universalists who don't hold to the creed. Were they christian universalists or unitarian universalists?"

The person I was talking to claimed to be a Christian Universalist. I, of course, told her that she wasn't a Christian when she rejected that Jesus is God, rose from the dead and paid the penalty for her sins. Forget the distinction between Unitarian and Christian Universalist. Are you suggest that Unitarians are not Christians?

"Do they not hold to the creed for the simple fact it is a creed and they don't hold to creeds in general, or is it because they don't believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?"

But see that's the thing. Everybody holds to a creed, when they understand that a creed is simply a statement of faith. That's all it is. Every Christian on this forum can make a statement of faith in Jesus Christ. Put it down on paper and you have yourself a creed. A creed is not exclusively Catholic. But alot of people think they are that's why they assume they're bad and avoid them.

"Or... do they think there is more to the Godhead than just the three? There's a whole bunch of reasons why people don't like the creeds."

Yep and I just told you the most common one up above.

"I didn't actually say that ALL universalists hold to the creed... seems like we have been unclear in what we have said and misunderstood on both sides in the last page or so of posting."

When the author of that article mentioned the creed and how most universalists don't hold to that creed, you said he misunderstood what universalists actually believe. Which can be taken to be a comment by you, that all universalists hold to the Nicene Creed. I've talked to universalists that don't. That was my point.

 

[Tavita]

Right, this is why you need a formal debate with a premise in place that will be supported by one side and examined by the other side. At the end of such a debate it is very likely that Universalism as a theology will not be proven to be true, just that the premise put forth about Universalism, whatever that premise is, is what will be decided to be true or false.

True, I'm not saying 'we will win'.. I think in a formal debate the whole context of the sides can be put forward in such a manner as for both sides to gain some understanding. I'm not really into proving anymore, it's a waste of time, and that's what these threads are to me anyways.. maybe not to others.

 

[Rajni]

Formal debates suck, they really do. People like to come in and tell others what they think and move on. A formal debate is not as "fast-paced" as this is, and will be a giant bore to a lot of people. That's why nobody's doing it and why you see so few of them in CF. Everybody prefers this method of communication to formal debate.

Plus, because it's a formal debate, wouldn't we have to wear tuxedos and gowns? (Just kidding!)

______________________________​

"For as in Adam all die, ​

so in Christ all will be made alive." ​

~ 1 Corinthians 15:22 ~​

 

[Zecryphon]

And therein lies the problem... Christian Universalism is not a denomination and you are trying to treat it as one. It's usually a core belief that one comes to while you are 'inside' a denomination. Would you say the confusion and chaos around the time of Luther's reformation was of the devil? Universalism only becomes confusing and chaotic to those who aren't universalists..

I would say that the idea of buying salvation and your way out of purgatory is of the devil, yes.

 

[Zecryphon]

True, I'm not saying 'we will win'.. I think in a formal debate the whole context of the sides can be put forward in such a manner as for both sides to gain some understanding. I'm not really into proving anymore, it's a waste of time, and that's what these threads are to me anyways.. maybe not to others.

"True, I'm not saying 'we will win'.. I think in a formal debate the whole context of the sides can be put forward in such a manner as for both sides to gain some understanding."

That's gonna be one hell of a big premise.

"I'm not really into proving anymore, it's a waste of time, and that's what these threads are to me anyways.. maybe not to others."

Then maybe a formal debate isn't what you're after. All you do in a formal debate is prove that the premise put forth, is either true or false. That's it. There's no great exchange of ideas and communication going on.

 

[Zecryphon]

Plus, because it's a formal debate, wouldn't we have to wear tuxedos and gowns? (Just kidding!)

______________________________​

"For as in Adam all die, ​

so in Christ all will be made alive." ​

~ 1 Corinthians 15:22 ~​

​

Wear whatever you want. I'm showin' up naked to watch. LOL

 

[Tavita]

I would say that the idea of buying salvation and your way out of purgatory is of the devil, yes.

I don't believe I can buy salvation, or that anyone can, and I don't believe in purgatory... there are your false beliefs about what I believe to begin with.

 

[Tavita]

Then maybe a formal debate isn't what you're after. All you do in a formal debate is prove that the premise put forth, is either true or false. That's it. There's no great exchange of ideas and communication going on.

Maybe it is what I'm after, how would you know?.. I would love to see it in action. I've never seen a formal debate over something like this. However it pans out, I would still like to see it....

...maybe I'll get to wear that formal dress I've been saving.

 

[Zecryphon]

I don't believe I can buy salvation, or that anyone can, and I don't believe in purgatory... there are your false beliefs about what I believe to begin with.

I never said you held those beliefs. That is what the Catholic church was teaching at the time Martin Luther penned his 95 Theses which is the document that sparked the Protestant Reformation. Since I believe every Protestant should know where they came from, here's a link to them: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm

 

[Zecryphon]

Maybe it is what I'm after, how would you know?.. I would love to see it in action. I've never seen a formal debate over something like this. However it pans out, I would still like to see it....

...maybe I'll get to wear that formal dress I've been saving.

"Maybe it is what I'm after, how would you know?.."

Cuz I used to mod a forum that had formal debates. Based upon what you've said you're after, a mutual understanding and learning on both sides of the issue, a formal debate is not for you. That's not what formal debates are for.

"I would love to see it in action. I've never seen a formal debate over something like this. However it pans out, I would still like to see it...."

There is a formal debate forum somewhere on CF. Lemme see if I can find a link for you. Here ya go, the debate section of CF.

http://christianforums.com/f9-discussion-debate.html

...maybe I'll get to wear that formal dress I've been saving.

Maybe.

 

[Tavita]

I never said you held those beliefs. That is what the Catholic church was teaching at the time Martin Luther penned his 95 Theses which is the document that sparked the Protestant Reformation. Since I believe every Protestant should know where they came from, here's a link to them: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm

I was originally trying to point out to FA, Z, that because there is confusion and chaos, doesn't mean it's 'of the devil', christians give him too much credit.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I'm still waiting to see if a formal theology debate takes place on the subject. We have a couple of people who are willing to take the Christian Universalist side but none have come forward for the opposing side.

Here is a post of one Universalist who would love to take it on....

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=42987858#post42987858

I'm in agreement with him that these threads of throwing scripture back and forwards on both sides is just plain frustrating, nobody is getting anywhere. Whenever a scripture is pulled out, we know it's been gone over before somewhere back in other threads.

Is there anyone who believes in eternal neverending suffering out there who will take on a formal debate?

I thought Joykins signed up for the opposing side.

 

[Tavita]

Cuz I used to mod a forum that had formal debates. Based upon what you've said you're after, a mutual understanding and learning on both sides of the issue, a formal debate is not for you. That's not what formal debates are for.

Yes, on the surface it probably looks that way. But I'm sure God is able to use anything, even a formal debate, to give people whatever it is He wants them to know. It's hard to put a measuring stick on what understanding people have gained from debates.

There is a formal debate forum somewhere on CF. Lemme see if I can find a link for you. Here ya go, the debate section of CF.

http://christianforums.com/f9-discussion-debate.html

I wonder why then that a few 'theologians' in CF are trying to get a formal debate area in the Theology area going?

http://christianforums.com/t6686460-a-real-formal-debate-forum.html

This thread came out of CaDan's suggestion in one of the universalist threads that this subject should be formally debated. If it could be done in the area you gave a link to, then I wonder why they don't seem to want to do it there?

 

[Tavita]

I thought Joykins signed up for the opposing side.

Yes, that's true! I wonder why it's not going ahead then.. maybe they've forgotten the whole idea.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I understand what he's saying. He said first that most, not all, don't accept the trinity, so there's a group of people left that do accept the trinity. This group would be the many he goes on to talk about.

That's the way I understood it also. It is not self-contradictory, but I have no idea whether he is just guessing about the "most" part, or if he has statistics to back it up.

Of course, I'm picky about careless use of the word, "most." I tell my students, "most" is a substitute for a statistic >50%, so if you say "most," you better post a citation or other basis to back it up.

Does this guy actually have a statistical sampling of Christian universalists, correlated with their beliefs on the Trinity? I doubt it. The article would have more credibility if it said "some," rather than "most."

 

[Zecryphon]

I was originally trying to point out to FA, Z, that because there is confusion and chaos, doesn't mean it's 'of the devil', christians give him too much credit.

"I was originally trying to point out to FA, Z, that because there is confusion and chaos, doesn't mean it's 'of the devil', christians give him too much credit."

I agree with you here. I've always believed that FA whips the devil out too much in her posts.