Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

[Confused-by-christianity]

I'd say one can have certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also there's a the process of elimination, where what seems to be the most reasonable or most likely result, scenario, or whatever is what one goes with.

someone somewhere has divided up the term "reason" and defined it.
I'll internet search it.

 

[ozso]

Yeah - testing your conclusions is a good thing I'd say.

1. Figure out what "reasonable" means and then see if what you think is: "beyond reasonable doubt".

If you turn out to be wrong - you can at least say you're "blameless" and blame the standard haha
You did your best with the intellectual resources available to you.

Ought we conclude that we are certain though? When concluding what the bible means?
Perhaps say we have a ...
Position that we consider reasonable.
We have judged other ideas as less reasonable and so eliminated them - but remain aware that we are not perfect judges and so could be wrong.
It's seems a little far for me to use the word certain when speaking of the bible.
Probably there are some bits in the bible where I would say "I am certain, it means x and not anything else other than x"???

It depends on what the issue is. When it comes to universal redemption, it's not something you have to be certain of. I remember a long time ago when I was expressing confusion mixed with frustration over all the different doctrines and theologies to a mentor via email, he listed and bunch with each saying "believing or not believing in __________ does not save or condemn you". The important thing is putting our faith and trust in God.

I remember a story about a man who was struggling with doubt, so he traveled all the way to India to ask Mother Teresa to help him gain clarity. She laughed and said she's never had clarity a day in her life. But what she did have was trust.

Edit: here's that story told better @25:30 in this video. Although the whole thing is worth listening to regarding doubt:

 

[Hmm]

No I'm more wondering...
How certain are people that their beliefs are true?

Others seem to read the bible and come away certain they have understood it correctly, they haven't made an error. How are they certain? How have they tested their knowledge?

Oh, I see. The fact is that no one really knows that their beliefs are true - they are beliefs, not articles of knowledge. Beliefs can and ideally are informed and reflected on and have proven worth in your life - faith doesn't have to be blind faith - but even so we don't know. A definition I like is that faith is absolute commitment in the faith of objective uncertainty.

Some people are quite comfortable in thinking of faith like this but others feel a need for absolute certainty. Because this isn't possible though they deny the natural doubts they have in themselves and try and to shout people down who are expressing these doubts.

 

[Cormack]

I liked Jordan Peterson’s discussion with Stephen Fry on the subject of beliefs to do with God. Fry carted out the old evil and suffering chestnut, as if that were an appropriate reason to deny God or to doubt his existence.

Peterson replied with something to the effect that he couldn’t see any way in which Fry’s outlook didn’t make the person who believes in those thing (and even the world) worse off, “therefore it must be wrong.”

Not necessarily wrong in the factual sense, more like the wrong way to live, especially for people who trust in and treasure the immediate experience of value, meaning, purpose, even beautiful.

That doesn’t really answer the bedrock epistemology concerns, but maybe it could help align people in a way that’s more loving and nearer to reality.

Why should we expect certainty about this or that or even be surprised when people try their best to sure up their lives, ego and sense of identity by pushing for levels of sureness they just don’t have.

 

[Cormack]

Universal reconciliation seems to me to reenforce the experience of value that I see when I look at people.

Even people who I don’t much care for have loving relationships that are an analog to my own relationships, and if I could appreciate those things, how much more would a perfect being appreciate and wish to safeguard those relationships and people.

Preferring universalism is really the preference for life and creation over death and destruction.

 

[Saint Steven]

Where does their certainty come from?

I've heard others say they know it in their know-er.
Ultimately we are talking about faith, which means being sure of what you hope for.

I think it has to do with conclusions.
An agnostic and a Christian have the same basic facts to work with.
The agnostic concludes that there isn't enough evidence to believe.
The Christian concludes that there is enough evidence to believe.

 

[Saint Steven]

haha will do.
What do you think heaven will be like?
What do you think you'll do in heaven?
Will there be a purpose of this life? Will you just get given all the answers and be 100% whole - so no more growing to do, or will you still need to grow?
Do you just think there's no way to know so might as well skip those questions?

Well... it's going to be GREAT!!!!!!!!!!
I like the word supernatural. Especially as super-natural.
A lot like this world, except everything is as it should be. Not broken and decaying.

I made a scale model of the new Jerusalem to see how big it is. It's like a 2,000 mile square cube. What is that in metric size? The base would cover most of the United States. And it is so tall it would break through our own atmosphere on the top. We could go look at the stars at night. Might need some space gear. Maybe tether on and float around. What a blast.

For this reason, I think the new earth will be considerably larger than this one. Not sure.

I imagine the inside of the cube (the new Jerusalem) being a huge open space with balconies from all of the flats (apartments) around the outside edge of the interior. When I arrive in my new home I will find it prepared just for me. I can hardly wait to see what is waiting in the music room. I own about seven instruments now. Imagine how many there might be. (or maybe only one perfect one) And the incredible craftwork and beautiful materials. And the amazing sound.

Of course, there will be a whole universe to explore and lots of work to do in developing and maintaining things. We'll have the opportunity to go to school and learn everything we want to know. Including what we will need for our new vocation.

I imagine those around us inventing new things and finding better ways to care for our worlds than what we did to this one.

Our amazing and satisfying work will be punctuated with recreation and travel to incredible places.

How does that sound?

 

[Hmm]

Preferring universalism is really the preference for life and creation over death and destruction.

I was listening to a talk on YouTube by Robin Parry and he said something like: "All you need to be universalist is a really robust theology of God's grace and salvation. You can make sin as bad as you like, you can make it super-duper, ultra-bad and all you need is Christ being stronger and it doesn't matter, Christ wins. So you can't go "Sin is so bad it stops God achieving God's purposes unless you think sin is bigger than God and you can go there if you like but then you would be a heretic (with an ironic smile here)."

I think he was saying here that sin sets us on a course away from God (life) and towards death and so thinking that God's solution to sin in Christ doesn't really work properly and sin exists eternally in hell is making the preference you describe.

 

[ozso]

I was listening to a talk on YouTube by Robin Parry and he said something like: "All you need to be universalist is a really robust theology of God's grace and salvation. You can make sin as bad as you like, you can make it super-duper, ultra-bad and all you need is Christ being stronger and it doesn't matter, Christ wins. So you can't go "Sin is so bad it stops God achieving God's purposes unless you think sin is bigger than God and you can go there if you like but then you would be a heretic (with an ironic smile here)."

I think he was saying here that sin sets us on a course away from God (life) and towards death and so thinking that God's solution to sin in Christ doesn't really work properly and sin exists eternally in hell is making the preference you describe.

Robin Parry. Yet another name to add to my list of UR heretics.

 

[Hmm]

Robin Parry. Yet another name to add to my list of UR heretics.

Indeed! In the talk he explains why Christian Universalism came to be regarded as heretical. The quote's quite long - luckily I managed to find a transcript - but interesting and sheds a lot of light on the matter. The council in question is the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553.

"Now onto the third area of debate and this is one that does interest me. In the sixth century, there was a big ecumenical council where leaders from across the Church around the world got together and decided on various issues. If you are of the stream of Christianity that thinks that ecumenical councils are important—and I am, I think they really matter—one of the issues with this particular council is that there is an appendix. The document councils—which were all about who was Jesus—tacked onto the end an appendix with a list of curses against… Well, it didn’t say who it’s against but they are often called the curses against Origen, even though they didn’t name him. It anathematizes or curses those who believe in this hideous doctrine of Apocatastasis. The reason this is important—and it’s particularly important if you’re a Catholic or Orthodox Christian—is if an ecumenical council declared universalism to be a heresy, then it is a heresy and that’s that, that kind of kills it there. So it does matter and there is debate among patristic scholars about this.
The majority view—and we can’t know for sure as we weren’t there—is that the appendix was not part of the actual council itself. It was the Emperor Justinian—who really hated universalism—who called the council. There was lots of controversy about the council. For example, the Pope wouldn’t go but he had to be there for it to count so they went and got soldiers and dragged him along but he refused to open up the council, which is what the Pope was meant to do. Anyway, Justinian was really determined to get through his anti-universalist thing. Before the council started, lots of bishops are getting there early (they arrived like months early because they’re coming from all over the world and the planes were rubbish in those days!) so Justinian calls them together and they kind of ratify these anathemas, these curses. Because Justinian wants to give it the aura of a sort of consensus view of the ecumenical Church, he sort-of tacks it on to the end of the council’s document. Now, if that is the case, then it has a really peculiar status. It doesn’t have the status of an ecumenical council because it wasn’t part of the proceedings of the council—so strictly speaking it’s not heresy—and yet it does kind of carry some of the momentum of that council.
There’s another debate related to this and this is more within Orthodox Christianity. Even if it’s true that this isn’t part of the proceedings of the council and that universalism wasn’t declared heresy, then the debate is, “But mate, lots of people came to think that it was and so doesn’t that make it so?” There is actually a genuine debate among some scholars as to whether that would make it so. I don’t think it would, I don’t think that would be right at all but anyway that’s me.
The other question is this, “What exactly was condemned in the council?” Was it universalism per se that was condemned or was it a particular species of universalism? I argue and lots of folk are starting to argue now (not because of me by the way, it’s a coincidence, it’s not that all these patristic scholars have read me and went, “Flip, why didn’t we think of that!”) So they think—and I’m agreeing with them because they’re clever—that actually it’s not universalism as an abstract idea, it’s universalism as connected to a whole bunch of other ideas as part of a network or system of beliefs that was very problematic. Maybe you think I’m going on about this too much but it does really matter for a lot of Christians as to whether universalism is technically a heresy, which is why I’m saying a little bit more about it.
The background to this is that Origen’s ideas had been developed in the centuries after him. He was around in the third century and the council was in the sixth century. By that time—particularly in certain monasteries in Palestine—Origen’s ideas have been developed, sometimes in quite quirky ways, ways that were tied in with pre-existence of souls and reincarnation and a whole bunch of other stuff. What was condemned in those anathemas or those curses is that whole system, that network. The monstrous doctrine of Apocatastasis and the restoration of demons and all that, that is condemned is the doctrine as connected into that whole network. If you read them, you’ll see some of those connections. Which means that, in fact, universalism as such is not condemned, just that particular species of universalism. Which is why, for instance, Gregory of Nyssa is never condemned, in fact, he is called the “father of the fathers.” He is one of the architects of Christian orthodoxy and is highly esteemed by those who are within Catholicism and Orthodoxy. He’s a Saint, even though he was an overt universalist because he didn’t believe in the pre-existence of souls and all this kind of stuff that was condemned.
All of this is to say, there is an ongoing debate about that and it matters because it ties into the whole question of whether universalism is heresy. I’m of the view that it’s not, or I would be in trouble—maybe not with God, who knows, maybe with God, I wouldn’t want to be in trouble with God."

 

[ozso]

Indeed! In the talk he explains why Christian Universalism came to be regarded as heretical. The quote's quite long - luckily I managed to find a transcript - but interesting and sheds a lot of light on the matter. The council in question is the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553.

"Now onto the third area of debate and this is one that does interest me. In the sixth century, there was a big ecumenical council where leaders from across the Church around the world got together and decided on various issues. If you are of the stream of Christianity that thinks that ecumenical councils are important—and I am, I think they really matter—one of the issues with this particular council is that there is an appendix. The document councils—which were all about who was Jesus—tacked onto the end an appendix with a list of curses against… Well, it didn’t say who it’s against but they are often called the curses against Origen, even though they didn’t name him. It anathematizes or curses those who believe in this hideous doctrine of Apocatastasis. The reason this is important—and it’s particularly important if you’re a Catholic or Orthodox Christian—is if an ecumenical council declared universalism to be a heresy, then it is a heresy and that’s that, that kind of kills it there. So it does matter and there is debate among patristic scholars about this.
The majority view—and we can’t know for sure as we weren’t there—is that the appendix was not part of the actual council itself. It was the Emperor Justinian—who really hated universalism—who called the council. There was lots of controversy about the council. For example, the Pope wouldn’t go but he had to be there for it to count so they went and got soldiers and dragged him along but he refused to open up the council, which is what the Pope was meant to do. Anyway, Justinian was really determined to get through his anti-universalist thing. Before the council started, lots of bishops are getting there early (they arrived like months early because they’re coming from all over the world and the planes were rubbish in those days!) so Justinian calls them together and they kind of ratify these anathemas, these curses. Because Justinian wants to give it the aura of a sort of consensus view of the ecumenical Church, he sort-of tacks it on to the end of the council’s document. Now, if that is the case, then it has a really peculiar status. It doesn’t have the status of an ecumenical council because it wasn’t part of the proceedings of the council—so strictly speaking it’s not heresy—and yet it does kind of carry some of the momentum of that council.
There’s another debate related to this and this is more within Orthodox Christianity. Even if it’s true that this isn’t part of the proceedings of the council and that universalism wasn’t declared heresy, then the debate is, “But mate, lots of people came to think that it was and so doesn’t that make it so?” There is actually a genuine debate among some scholars as to whether that would make it so. I don’t think it would, I don’t think that would be right at all but anyway that’s me.
The other question is this, “What exactly was condemned in the council?” Was it universalism per se that was condemned or was it a particular species of universalism? I argue and lots of folk are starting to argue now (not because of me by the way, it’s a coincidence, it’s not that all these patristic scholars have read me and went, “Flip, why didn’t we think of that!”) So they think—and I’m agreeing with them because they’re clever—that actually it’s not universalism as an abstract idea, it’s universalism as connected to a whole bunch of other ideas as part of a network or system of beliefs that was very problematic. Maybe you think I’m going on about this too much but it does really matter for a lot of Christians as to whether universalism is technically a heresy, which is why I’m saying a little bit more about it.
The background to this is that Origen’s ideas had been developed in the centuries after him. He was around in the third century and the council was in the sixth century. By that time—particularly in certain monasteries in Palestine—Origen’s ideas have been developed, sometimes in quite quirky ways, ways that were tied in with pre-existence of souls and reincarnation and a whole bunch of other stuff. What was condemned in those anathemas or those curses is that whole system, that network. The monstrous doctrine of Apocatastasis and the restoration of demons and all that, that is condemned is the doctrine as connected into that whole network. If you read them, you’ll see some of those connections. Which means that, in fact, universalism as such is not condemned, just that particular species of universalism. Which is why, for instance, Gregory of Nyssa is never condemned, in fact, he is called the “father of the fathers.” He is one of the architects of Christian orthodoxy and is highly esteemed by those who are within Catholicism and Orthodoxy. He’s a Saint, even though he was an overt universalist because he didn’t believe in the pre-existence of souls and all this kind of stuff that was condemned.
All of this is to say, there is an ongoing debate about that and it matters because it ties into the whole question of whether universalism is heresy. I’m of the view that it’s not, or I would be in trouble—maybe not with God, who knows, maybe with God, I wouldn’t want to be in trouble with God."

I was pretty sure the decree came late. 5th counsel in the 6th century is pretty late.

 

[Hmm]

I was pretty sure the decree came late. 5th counsel in the 6th century is pretty late.

It's only 600 years. I regularly spend longer than that at traffic lights.

 

[ozso]

It's only 600 years. I regularly spend longer than that at traffic lights.

That span of time is seems even more significant to Americans considering our country is only 245 years old.

 

[Cormack]

I don't presume a judgment either way on what God does.

Would you consider having a preference the same thing as to “presume a judgment?”

I mean, if my favourite football team clearly concedes a penalty, although I might make a judgment call on whether or not the penalty was valid, I’d still prefer that they didn’t give the penalty away.

My preference for something and my judgment about something can be totally different.

So this topic is about what you’d prefer was the case going forward.

 

[Cormack]

1 Timothy 2:4 tell us what God wills.

So Gods preference is for universalism? Meaning to be the most Christlike our preferred hope should be the universal reconciliation of all things, is that fair?

1First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be offered for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority—so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity. 3This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I feel the same question I’ve asked @o_mlly is useful here.

Sorry to disobey you, but my answer is "yes and no." I would prefer that all the unbelievers that I have known would be saved, thus showing God's grace.

That’s fine. Who am I that you should obey everything I’ve asked. Although, Bruce, I’m not sure you’ve really answered yes and no, you’ve simply answered no.

The question was “would you prefer it if universalism were true?” Universalism is the redemption and reconciliation to God of every person, but you haven’t written you’d prefer that.

You wrote you’d prefer if “every unbeliever you’ve ever known” were saved, that’s not universalism. Your answer isn’t yes and no, it’s just no.

If I said, O Lord, please save all the odd numbers, well, that still leaves an infinity of even numbers that aren’t saved.

Asking God to save all the unbelievers in your life isn’t close to universalism, right? Since there are billions of unbelieving people you didn’t know and will never know.

 

[SkyWriting]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in the universal reconciliation of all things, would you prefer that universalism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

I would say yes,
because I'd appreciate it if God had the patience to wait for unbelievers to enjoy the benefits of faith and belief. And maybe that is what is happening now. We are waiting for them.

 

[RDKirk]

Would you consider having a preference the same thing as to “presume a judgment?”

I mean, if my favourite football team clearly concedes a penalty, although I might make a judgment call on whether or not the penalty was valid, I’d still prefer that they didn’t give the penalty away.

My preference for something and my judgment about something can be totally different.

So this topic is about what you’d prefer was the case going forward.

"Preference" is the word that gets used a lot these days as a euphemism for both bigotry and judgment...so, no, it's not any better.

I "prefer" that God's will be done, not mine.

 

[o_mlly]

So Gods preference is for universalism? Meaning to be the most Christlike our preferred hope should be the universal reconciliation of all things, is that fair?

1 Timothy 2:4 reads "God wills all men"; not "all things" come to salvation. We pray that God's will be done ("thy will be done") in the Lord's prayer. It would be cognitively dissonant to pray for something we simultaneously think is impossible. So, yes. What we pray for is the same as what we hope for.

 

[Saint Steven]

1 Timothy 2:4 reads "God wills all men"; not "all things" come to salvation.

The restoration of all things

Matt 19:28
Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Acts 3:21
Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

Rom 8:20-21
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Romans 11:36
For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

Isa 65:17
"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

Rev 21:5
He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!"

 

[Albion]

There are many ways that this "restoration" wouldn't necessarily mean universal salvation.