Universal reconciliation

[Smoky]

I'm reading a book a book whose purpose is to give "three views of hell", traditional, anihilation, and universal reconciliation. My question is, " do you think universal reconciliation is heresy?

 

[Anto9us]

I don't think it's heresy, Smoky.

I feel "heresy" involves questions of the Nature and Person of Jesus Christ - specifically -- is he both divine and human?

But the "3 amigos" of the differing views are a frequent topic in the 'Unorthodox Doctrine Discussion forum' - the "UDDer people" -- where I found one of my threads had been transferred to from here long ago -- a fate you may be subject to yourself; but I hope not.

I was merely DISCUSSING at that time long ago the concept of Universalism; mentioning that in my town there was one UNITY church - where I was going, there was one Unitarian Church, and one Unitarian Universalist (yoo-Yoo) church

But anyway, yes - there are these three main views of "hell" among Christians; but

"what the hell you believe about Hell"

is not a matter of "heresy"

neither is it certain that these 3 views are the only possible ones - for instance - some people believe in reincarnation; wherein your soul can go to realms for correction; but this is not necessarily the "final answer" of the matter

Heresy is a technical theological concept (in reality) but in popular language is used to really mean "a position I disagree with" - a word bandied about with little regard for its specific meaning.

Not all "incorrect doctrine" is HERESY

Here at CF - "orthodox doctrine" is defined by the Nicene Creed -- which does not address annihilation, universalism, or eternal torment.

And of course there is a "larger Christian world" than CF -- which perhaps might define orthodoxy differently.

 

[Arcangl86]

As far as CF is concerned, Universal Reconciliation is unorthodox and as such can only be discussed in that forum. This site defines rather broadly as heresy as anything that is outside of the mainstream of Evangelical Christianity.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

notice where this thread is now ? "Whosover WILL, MAY come...... " not if they willn't ...

 

[hedrick]

CF standards aside, the question is presumably about liberal Christianity. Universal reconciliation is a fairly common option here. My sense is that it's a minority within mainline churches, but more common in more liberal groups.

I wouldn't call it a heresy, though based on Jesus' teachings I think it's most likely wrong.

Note that there are probably more than three options. Since Jesus didn't teach anything explicit about the nature of final punishment, it would be reasonable to understand his parables against the background of then-current Jewish beliefs. Hence some have been Jesus' references to Gehenna as referring to a place of temporary punishment. There's a common Jewish belief that Gehenna lasts at most a year. But that may be from a later period. As far as I can tell, there's enough ambiguity about 1st Cent beliefs that that approach probably doesn't give you a clear answer. (And it's quite likely that 1st Cent beliefs weren't uniform.)

The ambiguity is not helped by Jesus' connection of the term Gehenna with the catch phrase "where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched." This is a reference to Is 66:24, which is describing the dead bodies of God's enemies. I.e. not eternal torment, but death.

 

[Anto9us]

"temporary punishment" might have more merit than it seems at first glance

There is a passage about "beaten with few stripes - vs - beaten with many stripes" where "stripes" are apparently blows by a whip in a context which seems like "afterlife"

this would mean "degrees of punishment"

as well as

temporary punishment -- for whether few or many -- there would by necessity have to be a "last stripe" in any case

no less a commentator than William Barclay believed in universalism

 

[Qyöt27]

Heresy is a technical theological concept (in reality) but in popular language is used to really mean "a position I disagree with" - a word bandied about with little regard for its specific meaning.

It was often used in that context in the Early Church, though, as it entered theological parlance by being used to contrast orthodox and schismatic groups of beliefs. The main difference being that at that time, the orthodox side wasn't splintered amongst Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. So it was much easier to make 'definitive' statements about what counted as heresy, even though both sides of the argument likely thought the other to be the real heresy.

And not all of them had to do with the nature of Christ. Donatism, for example. One could even make the argument that, stripped of the differences in Christology, Gnosticism would still count as one because of just how distant it was from Pauline Christianity.

Not all "incorrect doctrine" is HERESY

This is also true. I think predestination is incorrect, but I don't consider it heresy since it falls within the broader debates within orthodoxy.

I reserve the term 'heresy' for those things that I feel aren't just incorrect (it has to be wildly incorrect at that), but also spiritually abusive and toxic (emotionally/mentally toxic, socio-politically toxic, etc.). There's very few - only four - things on that list: Dispensationalism, Prosperity 'Theology', isolationist dualism*, and Biblical Inerrancy. In more or less that order. #3 and #4 are pretty much tied and are interchangeable in rank, and #1 is far worse than the other three combined.

*this is that whole 'set apart' mentality taken to its absurd conclusion: the bubble. It's an extremely light form of the dualism you see in Gnosticism, where spiritual things are elevated above mundane things, with the latter actively demonized. It comes up most commonly in Evangelical and Fundamentalist rantings about media: 'Christian' artist good, 'secular' artist bad (never mind that it's often difficult for them to be able to draw the line between the two sometimes). But it also appears in other sorts of discussions about the value of society, because it's a basic misunderstanding or distortion of what 'the World' is. It's the impulse that drives the more cult-like tendencies in Fundamentalism.



In regard to the main thread topic, I see universal reconciliation as the thing all Christians should hope for as the outpouring of grace and mercy, but that is at the same time very hard as humans to accept as fair when considering the absolutely horrific realities of the worst crimes. That's where annihilationism comes in - it averts the eternal torture route, but still provides for some sense of justice in the end.

If Hell exists, and could be accurately called such, I would side on it having a type of permanence. Being punished 'for a time' but then eventually be reconciled already has a name: Purgatory. So quite frankly, if you're going to turn Hell into Purgatory, at least be honest with yourself and call it Purgatory.

 

[hedrick]

"temporary punishment" might have more merit than it seems at first glance

There is a passage about "beaten with few stripes - vs - beaten with many stripes" where "stripes" are apparently blows by a whip in a context which seems like "afterlife"

this would mean "degrees of punishment"

as well as

temporary punishment -- for whether few or many -- there would by necessity have to be a "last stripe" in any case

no less a commentator than William Barclay believed in universalism

There were distinguished advocates for universal reconciliation in the early Church as well, but it seems always to have been a minority viewpoint.

Jesus definitely speaks of varying degrees of reward and punishment. See also 1 Cor 3:12 ff.

However it's remarkably hard to put together a picture of just how judgement will be done. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus didn't think we need to know. Differing levels of reward, and 1 Cor 3:12 are still compatible with the idea that there are people who are genuinely enemies of Christ, and who are eternally lost.

I will say that few commentators understand Mat 25:46 as Barclay does, in part because his understanding of "kolasis" isn't supported by its use elsewhere. My sense is that a liberal who believes in Universal Reconciliation is more likely to say that Mat 25:46 isn't Jesus' words. I wish I could find an advocate of universalism whose Biblical exegesis is trustworthy.

Paul has places where he looks universalist, but it's not so clear that you can maintain this consistently for him. Jesus can possibly be understood as teaching annihilation, though again, it's not so clear that this can plausibly be maintained consistently across all his teaching. You really need to check the exegesis behind these interpretations, and you need to verify their claims about how words were used and about 1st Cent Jewish traditions. I've found plausible-sounding but wrong claims pretty much everywhere.

 

[SarahsKnight]

There is a passage about "beaten with few stripes - vs - beaten with many stripes" where "stripes" are apparently blows by a whip in a context which seems like "afterlife"

this would mean "degrees of punishment"

Exactly. And somehow the traditional view of eternal torment still thinks that reconciles easily with infinite ongoing punishment, ... because that makes sense apparently.


I don't see how one can suffer a few blows and another suffer many and yet the punishment for both goes on infinitely. But preaching from the pulpit with authority can be a powerful thing, to where the frightening words about eternal hellfire will convince minds without question even when nearly all logic also flies out the door. I am so glad I cast off the immense burden of this teaching at last. It has nothing to do with Christ and the Gospel, and I hate it when advocates of eternal torment try to put the hell doctrine on the same level of importance so as to suggest or sometimes outright accuse those who disagree with them as being false believers who deny Jesus.

I don't believe in universal reconciliation (yet, unless something changes later), either, but even such a seeming minority view I think has more Biblical support than the traditional view. And it certainly isn't damning heresy.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I say, as several of the Early Church Fathers did, that I hope for universal reconciliation but do not teach it as doctrine. Because I think there's enough support for it in scripture to make it a reasonable hope, but not enough to be certain of it.

 

[Anto9us]

Lotta good stuff in these last handful of posts.

Wow.

 

[justhere1]

I think Universal Reconciliation is heresy.

 

[Rajni]

I'm reading a book a book whose purpose is to give "three views of hell", traditional, anihilation, and universal reconciliation. My question is, " do you think universal reconciliation is heresy?

I've been told that it's a heresy, but I don't see it as one.

-

 

[merrykate]

According to St. Augustine, it is not heresy: "There are very many, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments."

Of course, the historical debate is long and much more complicated than that.

My simpler answer is no, it is not heresy. In fact, I think it is truth.

If you're curious about Universal Reconciliation from a biblical standpoint, I suggest Thomas Talbott's "The Inescapable Love of God" and Robin Parry's "The Evangelical Universalist." Both offer wonderful insights into this debate without demeaning the Bible, Christian history, or traditional theology.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm reading a book a book whose purpose is to give "three views of hell", traditional, anihilation, and universal reconciliation. My question is, " do you think universal reconciliation is heresy?

Ultimate reconciliation makes sense if the God of judgment is the father of Jesus "do good to those who do evil to you so you may be like my father in heaven"

 

[godenver1]

There's very few - only four - things on that list: Dispensationalism, Prosperity 'Theology', isolationist dualism*, and Biblical Inerrancy. In more or less that order. #3 and #4 are pretty much tied and are interchangeable in rank, and #1 is far worse than the other three combined.
.

Forgive me for being late to reply, but why do you hold dispensationalism in such poor regard? I'll admit I'm really only familiar with the eschatology part, or at least some of it and not the whole doctrine of dispensationalism.

 

[Qyöt27]

Forgive me for being late to reply, but why do you hold dispensationalism in such poor regard? I'll admit I'm really only familiar with the eschatology part, or at least some of it and not the whole doctrine of dispensationalism.

The eschatology is the main offender, without a doubt. And while the eschatology is enough to qualify for it (what with milleniarianism arguably being condemned as heresy in the Early Church period under the name Chiliasm), the real damage comes from the secondary effects it has: it breeds (or enables existing) paranoia, fear, anger, crass hypocrisy (despite all their claims to love Jewish people and Israel, the 'theology' treats them as mere pawns in an end game that plays out as escapist), and strife in very real political situations that would otherwise have nothing to do with religion. It fails the tests in Galatians 5:22-23 (and passes the test under 5:19-21) and Philippians 4:4-9. It gives religious excuses to support extremely terrible politics and deny science ("Who cares if we wreck the environment? We'll just be getting Raptured soon anyway."). I've never personally seen anyone claim it, but I've read posts from others who've heard dispensationalists say that the Beatitudes are not for the current age - which goes a long way to explaining why such horrific things are incorporated into their eschatology and the way they treat social and political issues.

There's also the part where it's less than 200 years old and has no historical or exegetical grounds to stand on, since it mostly consists of prooftexting disparate verses and stringing them together to support their claims.

The 'minor' form, that is, the technical definition of Dispensationalism as an interpretive framework that breaks the timeline of Scripture up into 'dispensations' - is essentially a retread of the idea of procession of the ages, which owes itself more to Greek and Roman mythology than to Christianity or Judaism.

I'll openly admit that my animosity towards it is fueled by old childhood scars (this post touches on more than just this topic, but is still a good overview), and I wasn't even in a situation where we were taught it systematically. I doubt that even if we were taught it systematically that the end result would be less traumatic, given what others on here who did grow up in that kind of environment and left relate about it.

 

[godenver1]

Oh, thanks for that post!

 

[dayhiker]

I guess I move more toward universalism as I couldn't find any place where the Bible said God would not accept someone who repented after they died.
Then as I went back to what I believed about how much God loves us and how hesitant He is to judge us it just made sense to me that eventually most people would repent at some point. So I've never said all people will get to heaven, but its hard for me to believe even the hardest heart wouldn't be willing to repent at the love of God sometime into eternity.

 

[Bick]

"Universal Reconcilation" is not something to be hoped for, it is God's marvelous plan that through Christ's sacrifice, there will be peace throughout the whole universe, when all enemies will be subject to Jesus Christ, and "every knee will bow,.... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to The glory of God the Father." Ref: Phil. 1;10-11; 1 Cor. 15:24-26, and Col. 1:19-21.

This will be a willing subjecting, for it will be to the glory of God.