Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[ozso]

It's something that has to be taken from his complete body of works, but the closest he comes to outright explaining the concept is in his works on baptism. It's a fairly common philsophical position from the Alexandrian school refining just a bit on Clement's writings in the same vein.

That seems a lot closer to the UR position than the view that 99% of humanity will be sentenced to eternal torment.

 

[Fervent]

Have you studied it thoroughly enough to know for sure that Fr Aidan Kimel is incorrect about what transpired?

"Know for sure?" No, it's history nothing is ever certain. But to hold modern theories based on inferences from an extremely limited body of documentation over the claims of those closer in history to the event seems rather unwarranted. Modern skeptical inquiry often does little but cast doubt on our ability to reconstruct history as there are always scholars willing to undermine historical records, especially if it means they can remove a stain from their pet theory. The anathema's against origenist universalism are pretty secure, with those attacking them only attacking at what point in the precedings they occurred in order to try to render them neutered.

 

[Fervent]

That seems a lot closer to the UR position than the view that 99% of humanity will be sentenced to eternal torment.

Not really, because it upholds the reality of an eternal hell. There are compatible forms of "universalism" with Christianity, but the modern notion that everyone eventually is saved isn't the same thing as the historic views of universalism that upheld the Scriptures regarding the eternality of judgment against the wicked.

 

[ozso]

Not really, because it upholds the reality of an eternal hell. There are compatible forms of "universalism" with Christianity, but the modern notion that everyone eventually is saved isn't the same thing as the historic views of universalism that upheld the Scriptures regarding the eternality of judgment against the wicked.

I said closer to. Not the same as. You seem a bit trigger happy.

 

[Fervent]

I said closer to. Not the same as. You seem a bit trigger happy.

And as I said, they're not really close at all. Modern universalist theories begin with the notion of discarding hell and questioning its justice, holding philosophy over revelation. The Alexandrian schools view was a means of coming from Biblical revelation and synthesizing it. It's not really close to modern universalism at all, except superficially.

 

[ozso]

And as I said, they're not really close at all. Modern universalist theories begin with the notion of discarding hell and questioning its justice, holding philosophy over revelation. The Alexandrian schools view was a means of coming from Biblical revelation and synthesizing it. It's not really close to modern universalism at all, except superficially.

It sounds like you're confusing other types of universalism with Christian universalism. Christian universalism comes from Biblical revelation via a thorough study of scripture, koine Greek, church history and patristics. Well known Christian universalists are respected theologians. They're the ones who cite Gregory of Nyssa, Clement and others as well as the Alexandrian schools.

 

[Fervent]

It sounds like you're confusing other types of universalism with Christian universalism. Christian universalism comes from Biblical revelation via a thorough study of scripture, koine Greek, church history and patristics. Well known Christian universalists are respected theologians. They're the ones who cite Gregory of Nyssa, Clement and others as well as the Alexandrian schools.

No, I'm no confusing anything. The universalism pushed by individuals in this thread often undermines the reliability of Scripture in favor of human philosophical musings. Now, I'm not speaking of someone like Lazarus Short who came to the conclusion through Scriptural studies but of individuals who have accused the Bible of being edited into a damnationalist text, or who have compiled a list of contextless snippets from ECF without actually reading the source material to understand the nuance of the positions and latch on with a modern universal frame. Certainly, there are forms of universal reconciliation that are compatible with a broad Christian tradition but the one that is becoming common in liberal Western circles tends not to be and often ends in attempts to denigrate Scripture.

 

[ozso]

No, I'm no confusing anything. The universalism pushed by individuals in this thread often undermines the reliability of Scripture in favor of human philosophical musings. Now, I'm not speaking of someone like Lazarus Short who came to the conclusion through Scriptural studies but of individuals who have accused the Bible of being edited into a damnationalist text, or who have compiled a list of contextless snippets from ECF without actually reading the source material to understand the nuance of the positions and latch on with a modern universal frame. Certainly, there are forms of universal reconciliation that are compatible with a broad Christian tradition but the one that is becoming common in liberal Western circles tends not to be and often ends in attempts to denigrate Scripture.

I often hear accusations of denigrating scripture. But what I've seen is criticism of certain views and interpretations of scripture. Some folks don't seem to realize there's a separation between what scripture says and what they were taught what scripture says. Many seem to reject even considering universalism as a possibility, because it goes against whatever doctrine they've embraced as being virtually infallible.

 

[Hmm]

Not really, because it upholds the reality of an eternal hell. There are compatible forms of "universalism" with Christianity, but the modern notion that everyone eventually is saved isn't the same thing as the historic views of universalism that upheld the Scriptures regarding the eternality of judgment against the wicked.

You are making a category mistake. Universalism means universal redemption. To say that the historic universalist views support the idea of an eternal hell is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Hmm]

No, I have not said that. Modern scholarship is valuable, but must be kept in proper perspective especially when dealing with history. Critical histories are more likely to lean towards skepticism over things that need not be skeptical about. The proceedings of the ecumenical councils are far more likely to have been understood by those immediately contemporary while simultaneously being poorly documented.

And who decides the things that we "need not be skeptical about"? The whole point of scholarship is that it critically examines everything in the light of new knowledge. Your claim that the people who were around at the time will always understand things better than modern scholars can implies that people throughout history never got things wrong and that there is no value in academic study. If we dismiss scholarship on principle then how can we ever learn anything new?

 

[Hmm]

individuals who have accused the Bible of being edited into a damnationalist text

No-one in this discussion as far as I'm aware has ever suggested that the Bible has been edited into a damnationist text. On the contrary, the point that has been made over and over again in this and other threads is that the Bible is not a damnationist text but that it is widely perceived as such that because of very basic mistranslations, in particular the mistranslation of "anionios kolasis" to "eternal punishment" instead of its true meaning of something like "corrective punishment lasting for an age". You can keep repeating that universalists "denigrate" the Bible but they are actually honouring the Bible and trying to regain it by pointing these facts out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No-one in this discussion as far as I'm aware has ever suggested that the Bible has been edited into a damnationist text. On the contrary, the point that has been made over and over again in this and other threads is that the Bible is not a damnationist text but that it is widely perceived as such that because of very basic mistranslations, in particular the mistranslation of "anionios kolasis" to "eternal punishment" instead of its true meaning of something like "corrective punishment lasting for an age". You can keep repeating that universalists "denigrate" the Bible but they are actually honouring the Bible and trying to regain it by pointing these facts out.

It could be that the Universalist point is correct, but it seems to me that if most of the argument boils down to a translation issue over "anionios kolasis, then much of this debate is more or less an argument over who has the "best and most professional" translation expert(s). Personally, I think it's more than just this, BUT it seems to be a central issue.

 

[Saint Steven]

It could be that the Universalist point is correct, but it seems to me that if most of the argument boils down to a translation issue over "anionios kolasis, then much of this debate is more or less an argument over who has the "best and most professional" translation expert(s). Personally, I think it's more than just this, BUT it seems to be a central issue.

From a UR point of view, the biggest issue is about the character of God. Is he really a cosmic tyrant? Something on the level of an angry volcano god?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From a UR point of view, the biggest issue is about the character of God. Is he really a cosmic tyrant? Something on the level of an angry volcano god?

Steven, why are you so focused on this issue?

Y'know, I was bullied a bit when I was a kid, but when I later read the Bible on my own, I never thought that God or Jesus was a bully. Sure, there are 'hard moral' bits to have to work through and think about and analyze and shake out our feelings over, but in this case, we can't just 'choose' a set of moral principles and apply them willie-nillie to the concept of God we see in the Bible.

It doesn't work that way, but it is what a lot of ex-Christians today have done in order to arrive that their current atheistic mindsets.

 

[Hmm]

It could be that the Universalist point is correct, but it seems to me that if most of the argument boils down to a translation issue over "anionios kolasis, then much of this debate is more or less an argument over who has the "best and most professional" translation expert(s). Personally, I think it's more than just this, BUT it seems to be a central issue.

I believe you've got this the wrong way round: it's not a central issue to the universalist argument but it is to the infernalist case. The reason this particular translation error is discussed so much is that to infernalists, the facts that the phrase "eternal punishment" appears in most English Bibles is proof of ECT. What other argument can be made other than pointing out that this is a simple translation error?

 

[Saint Steven]

Steven, why are you so focused on this issue?

God is being slandered.
It is horrifying to examine what the church teaches about God without thinking through the implications.

It is claimed that God predestined the vast majority of humankind to burn for all eternity with no hope of escape. And this is used as a fear tactic to control people. Spiritual extortion. Believe, or burn. The church is set about the task of saving people from God. Say what?

 

[Saint Steven]

It doesn't work that way, but it is what a lot of ex-Christians today have done in order to arrive that their current atheistic mindsets.

Sad to say, they are winning the debates against the traditional church. Here's an example.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I believe you've got this the wrong way round: it's not a central issue to the universalist argument but it is to the infernalist case. The reason this particular translation error is discussed so much is that to infernalists, the facts that the phrase "eternal punishment" appears in most English Bibles is proof of ECT. What other argument can be made other than pointing out that it is a simple translation?

I don't have this backwards if I just cited the issue as not pertaining to English, but to the translation process that is undertaken in order to extract the meanings of ideas that are embedded in the words of ancient Hebrew and Greek.

Sure, some folks here who ONLY read English can be cited by you as only landing on eternal punishment because of the translation they find in their respectively chosen English Bibles, and they think that is proof. (I don't; and you don't, but they do).

But it seems to me that the reality is that the "Bible" is really an ancient document that needs to be handled comprehensively rather than piecemealed through personal eisegesis via English.

 

[Hmm]

Sad to say, they are winning the debates against the traditional church.

And ECT is one of the main reasons which is obvious nonsense to the person on the street as well as a significant and, by all accounts, increasing number of Christians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God is being slandered.
It is horrifying to examine what the church teaches about God without thinking through the implications.

Sure, it is discomfitting to see fellow Christians push for what seem to us to be mistakes in reading, understanding and applying the Bible. Huge mistakes have been made, and ECT may be one of the longer running mistakes, but at the same time, the overall interpretive issue is kind of ambiguous. So, I tend to just accept that God has wrath, and that some of that wrath is expressed here in this life, and some of it will also be expressed to some people on the other side of the grave. And it is what it is, even if none of us has a full claim on understanding exactly what it all entails.

It is claimed that God predestined the vast majority of humankind to burn for all eternity with no hope of escape. And this is used as a fear tactic to control people. Spiritual extortion. Believe, or burn. The church is set about the task of saving people from God. Say what?

Yeah, but it also sounds like serial murderers who are unrepetent are going to get off scott free without due penalty and that we're being pressed here to accept the idea that if God somehow isn't going to punish them on the other side of the grave, we shouldn't either man-to-man on this side of the grave.

In other words, there's an axiological problem here involving 'who has the final say as to what constitutes "Justice".'

What is "justice"?