Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

I would like to understand the mindset better so that I can cut more slack. I've never believed in ECT and I can't imagine doing so but it clearly plays a foundational part in many people's faith. It's as if the very reason for Jesus' existence and death was to keep us from ECT so if you do away with ECT your faith won't work anymore.

Did you used to believe something like that and, if so, how did you keep your faith going when you jettisoned your belief in ECT? Or what was it that changed your mindset? If that's not too personal a question...

I remember understanding the concept of heaven and hell at a very young age. My Dad used to tell a story of a humorous comment I made to one of his work associates that was a cigarette smoker. My parents didn't smoke. Somehow I had the idea that this was a damnable behavior. (or an indicator of such) And cautioned the work associate accordingly. As far as I know, he took it as good humor from a child, though I was probably dead serious. And really, this is built into our culture. It comes up in the arts all the time. Heaven and hell.

And I wasn't raised in a hell fire and brimstone church. But it was considered a biblical truth. And any evangelism or missions efforts were to save the lost and ultimately rescue them from certain hell. But the hell aspect was never out front. And in fact was just an uncomfortable reality that came with all the other blessings associated with the faith. So, our faith survives just fine without ECT. It was never a primary element anyway.

As far as that goes, the difficult aspect for me, and still somewhat of an issue, is what this means in terms of the reliability of the bible. If the damnation texts are wrong, what else is wrong? And if anything is wrong, does the whole book go in the rubbish bin? (to use the British term)

In reality, the ECT texts are not the only areas of questionable translation issues. And there are other questions about authorship, inspiration and inerrancy. Not to mention questions of literal or figurative interpretations, and comparisons with science and archaeology and history. Which all point to questions about what this book is, and what we are supposed to do with it. (see Peter Enns)

It seems that my changed views on the final judgment and UR, are only the tip of the iceberg. (as compared with my religious upbringing which was based on a view of inspiration and inerrancy) And most disturbingly, I find myself more in alignment with atheists than Christians on some biblical issues. Say what? (ouch)

 

[Der Alte]

** *

* * *

[Trip down memory lane omitted] * * * And any evangelism or "missions efforts were to save the lost and ultimately rescue them from certain hell. But the hell aspect was never out front. And in fact was just an uncomfortable reality that came with all the other blessings associated with the faith. So, our faith survives just fine without ECT. It was never a primary element anyway.
As far as that goes, the difficult aspect for me, and still somewhat of an issue, is what this means in terms of the reliability of the bible. If the damnation texts are wrong, what else is wrong? And if anything is wrong, does the whole book go in the rubbish bin? (to use the British term)
In reality, the ECT texts are not the only areas of questionable translation issues. And there are other questions about authorship, inspiration and inerrancy. Not to mention questions of literal or figurative interpretations, and comparisons with science and archaeology and history. Which all point to questions about what this book is, and what we are supposed to do with it. (see Peter Enns)
It seems that my changed views on the final judgment and UR, are only the tip of the iceberg. (as compared with my religious upbringing which was based on a view of inspiration and inerrancy) And most disturbingly, I find myself more in alignment with atheists than Christians on some biblical issues. Say what? (ouch)"​

If one was truly concerned about the "correct translation" of the scriptures IMHO the worst place to look for a "correct translation" would be anything written or endorsed by one's own denomination.
If, e.g., one wants a correct translation of the OT who better than the translation by native Hebrew speaking scholars i.e. 1917 Jewish Publication Society.
And for the NT, Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church for over 2000 years. Who better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the EOB know the correct translation.
Both versions are available online free. There is never any excuse to say "mistranslation" and choose one that just happens to support one's own assumptions/presuppositions as virtually all heterodox groups do. Present company not excluded.
Another pet peeve of mine is when folks just happen to get a "divine revelation" e.g. JW, LDS, OP, UPCI, WWCG, INC etc., which also just happens to support their assumptions/presuppositions.
So many "divine revelations" out there they can't all be right but they can all be wrong.

 

[Hmm]

My Dad used to tell a story of a humorous comment I made to one of his work associates that was a cigarette smoker. My parents didn't smoke. Somehow I had the idea that this was a damnable behavior. (or an indicator of such) And cautioned the work associate accordingly. As far as I know, he took it as good humor from a child, though I was probably dead serious. And really, this is built into our culture. It comes up in the arts all the time. Heaven and hell.

You might really have helped the guy. I used to smoke and I remember a friend's two young kids chanting some stuff they'd learnt at primary school about the dangers of smoking at me. That gave me motivation to stop shortly after because I couldn't their simple messages out of my head. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings!

And I wasn't raised in a hell fire and brimstone church. But it was considered a biblical truth. And any evangelism or missions efforts were to save the lost and ultimately rescue them from certain hell. But the hell aspect was never out front. And in fact was just an uncomfortable reality that came with all the other blessings associated with the faith. So, our faith survives just fine without ECT. It was never a primary element anyway.

Okay. That's the same as most churches I've been to. It's kind of never spoken about.

As far as that goes, the difficult aspect for me, and still somewhat of an issue, is what this means in terms of the reliability of the bible. If the damnation texts are wrong, what else is wrong? And if anything is wrong, does the whole book go in the rubbish bin? (to use the British term)

Trash can would also have been acceptable

It's a good question. If we can't read it literalistically, how do we know what it means? I don't think there's a simple answer to that but I think we have a sense of rightness if someone is speaking the truth.

In reality, the ECT texts are not the only areas of questionable translation issues. And there are other questions about authorship, inspiration and inerrancy. Not to mention questions of literal or figurative interpretations, and comparisons with science and archaeology and history. Which all point to questions about what this book is, and what we are supposed to do with it. (see Peter Enns)

Thanks for the ref. I'll check him out.

It seems that my changed views on the final judgment and UR, are only the tip of the iceberg. (as compared with my religious upbringing which was based on a view of inspiration and inerrancy) And most disturbingly, I find myself more in alignment with atheists than Christians on some biblical issues. Say what? (ouch)

I find that quite natural. I have far more in common with a compassionate atheist than a Christian who believes in a tormenting God, or one who regards the Bible as a scientific textbook. God isn't constrained by Christianity as Desmond Tutu said.

 

[Saint Steven]

Okay. That's the same as most churches I've been to. It's kind of never spoken about.

I was remembering today that we used to present it as "eternal separation from God." Which was a mild way of saying what we really believed about it.

Saint Steven said: ↑
And I wasn't raised in a hell fire and brimstone church. But it was considered a biblical truth. And any evangelism or missions efforts were to save the lost and ultimately rescue them from certain hell. But the hell aspect was never out front. And in fact was just an uncomfortable reality that came with all the other blessings associated with the faith. So, our faith survives just fine without ECT. It was never a primary element anyway.

 

[Hmm]

I was remembering today that we used to present it as "eternal separation from God." Which was a mild way of saying what we really believed about it.

That's a great euphemism but it begs the question of how anyone (or anything) can exist for eternity (or a single second) unless their existence is sustained by God. We can be distanced from God and we probably usually are but separation from God isn't possible because being the creator means not only did He create the universe and everything in it, He also sustains it at every moment. If God suddenly disappeared, everything else would immediately vanish.

 

[Saint Steven]

That's a great euphemism but it begs the question of how anyone (or anything) can exist for eternity (or a single second) unless their existence is sustained by God. We can be distanced from God and we probably usually are but separation from God isn't possible because being the creator means not only did He create the universe and everything in it, He also sustains it at every moment. If God suddenly disappeared, everything else would immediately vanish.

It might be based on the erroneous belief that sin can't be present with God.

If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. - Psalm 139:8 KJV

Saint Steven said: ↑
I was remembering today that we used to present it as "eternal separation from God." Which was a mild way of saying what we really believed about it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Eterna

It might be based on the erroneous belief that sin can't be present with God.

If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. - Psalm 139:8 KJV

Saint Steven said: ↑
I was remembering today that we used to present it as "eternal separation from God." Which was a mild way of saying what we really believed about it.

Eternal separation from God's Love is not the same as eternal separation from God.

The Holiness of God the Father is eternally free from sin.

El Roi (the God that sees) cannot be hidden from.

 

[Hmm]

Eterna


Eternal separation from God's Love is not the same as eternal separation from God.

The Holiness of God the Father is eternally free from sin.

El Roi (the God that sees) cannot be hidden from.

That's an interesting point but I have to say I find it hard to understand how that would work. It sounds like we both agree that if you are in hell then you are upheld in existence at every moment by God and so you are not separate from God. But because God is love I don't see how you can be separate from love. Everything God does must be directed towards a loving end and that must necessarily exclude an everlasting punishment because there is no end to it and no purpose other than the torment itself. I can't seem how this is consistent with God being supremely loving. OTOH, the universalist understanding of hell as a place of correction for a time limited duration does give it a loving purpose in the same way that a human parent corrects their child for their long term good.

 

[Saint Steven]

Eternal separation from God's Love is not the same as eternal separation from God.

The Holiness of God the Father is eternally free from sin.

El Roi (the God that sees) cannot be hidden from.

Thanks for your reply, Carl.
Let's discuss further.

I suppose the phrase "eternal separation from God" leaves the definition of hell open to a range of interpretations.

And the biblical statement is: Nothing can separate us from the love of God. (even death)

Romans 8:38-39 NRSV
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That's an interesting point but I have to say I find it hard to understand how that would work. It sounds like we both agree that if you are in hell then you are upheld in existence at every moment by God and so you are not separate from God. But because God is love I don't see how you can be separate from love. Everything God does must be directed towards a loving end and that must necessarily exclude an everlasting punishment because there is no end to it and no purpose other than the torment itself. I can't seem how this is consistent with God being supremely loving. OTOH, the universalist understanding of hell as a place of correction for a time limited duration does give it a loving purpose in the same way that a human parent corrects their child for their long term good.

I could agree if there was no reference to God's wrath in scripture.

We are not dealing with a Big Daddy in the sky.

His Holiness is terrible.

... at the same time,

His Love endures towards the faithful.

Again I suspect our theology is shaped by out personal experience of God to some degree. If we have been rendered prostrate by Him like Isaiah, there will be a healthy respect and wholesome fear. I must say my position is not only a matter of intense and sustained reading of the Word, but occasions when He has personally revealed Himself to me with life changing effect.
He picked me up from worse than nothing and gave me a second chance.
He first met me face to face when I was about 8.
I am constrained to testify that He is real and alive and to be both Loved and Feared. Hey this is for our own good - for myself I can say that without His mercy I am wayward and a lost cause. With His Love I am restored and walk in celebration with Him with deep thankfulness.

 

[Andrewn]

But either way one thing people don't realize (which is annoying) is there are at least seven different types of Universalism, and because the Origenist type was condemned at the Council does not mean all types were condemned at the Council.

Gregory of Nyssa believed that all of humanity would be saved, but that those who willfully reject Christ would be stripped of their humanity and rendered pure malevolent wills when cast into the pit.

Yes, there are different types of Universalism and it is possible that a small minority of people would be stripped of their humanity. For example,

"The Talmud offers a number of thoughts relating to the afterlife. After death, the soul is brought for judgment. Those who have led pristine lives enter immediately into the Olam Haba or world to come. Most do not enter the world to come immediately, but now experience a period of review of their earthly actions and they are made aware of what they have done wrong. Some view this period as being a "re-schooling", with the soul gaining wisdom as one's errors are reviewed. Others view this period to include spiritual discomfort for past wrongs. At the end of this period, not longer than one year, the soul then takes its place in the world to come. Although discomforts are made part of certain Jewish conceptions of the afterlife, the concept of eternal damnation is not a tenet of the Jewish afterlife. According to the Talmud, extinction of the soul is reserved for a far smaller group of malicious and evil leaders, either whose very evil deeds go way beyond norms, or who lead large groups of people to utmost evil."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife

Also, in Mormons have a view that those who willfully reject Christ would reside in an eternal state called Outer Darkness.

Of course, I don't believe in Rabbinic or Mormon views. I mention these as examples of the different types of Universal reconciliation.

Certainly, there are forms of universal reconciliation that are compatible with a broad Christian tradition

Good.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Thanks for your reply, Carl.
Let's discuss further.

I suppose the phrase "eternal separation from God" leaves the definition of hell open to a range of interpretations.

And the biblical statement is: Nothing can separate us from the love of God. (even death)

Romans 8:38-39 NRSV
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Yes - this reference is to the saved.

I think we can face death in life - Paul refers to dying daily - carrying about the death of Jesus that the life of Jesus may be manifest. Less of me more of Him. The heart of the Gospel is in the Power of the Cross. Believing that He creates something out of nothing. This is the posture of the true believer.

 

[Andrewn]

I could agree if there was no reference to God's wrath in scripture.

The object is to discuss why so many people find the idea of universal salvation objectionable. Do you have a view on that?

I've come to realize that misunderstanding the wrath of God is really what should be discussing, our view of God, not UR.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I've come to realize that the misconception of the wrath of God is really what should be discussing, our view of God, not UR.

Yes... that is a better place to start.

I have noticed on CF that many of the theologies presented seem to lack a consistent appreciation of the character of God.

Somehow for me, the expression of His awesomeness causes our theological constructs to pale into insignificance.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes - this reference is to the saved. ...

Like you, I used to view that as a reference to the saved only.
Our presuppositions drive our interpretation.

If this scripture only applies to the saved, then we are claiming that all these things CAN separate us from the love of God. How can this be? Seems impossible that "the lost" would ever be saved. How could salvation, or a relationship with God, even be possible?

Romans 8:38-39 NRSV
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Saint Steven]

... The heart of the Gospel is in the Power of the Cross. Believing that He creates something out of nothing. This is the posture of the true believer.

Yes, I agree, the heart of the Gospel is in the Power of the Cross.
So, why would God limit the application to only a few while he incinerates the rest for all eternity? Thus making the "Power of the Cross" ineffective for the majority. (and at such tremendous expense) Who is the winner in that scenario? (sin)

James 2:13 NIV
... Mercy triumphs over judgment.

 

[Andrewn]

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?

Yesterday, I received Ilaria Ramelli's book "A Larger Hope? Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich." I started by reading an article in the appendix about the meaning of "aionios," which summarizes this famous scholar's findings from her research that had been published in her well-celebrated book "Terms for Eternity: Aionios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Texts."

Her findings strongly support the definitions that you, I, and others have advocated in this thread.

 

[Hmm]

I've come to realize that misunderstanding the wrath of God is really what should be discussing, our view of God, not UR.

Okay. I would liken God's wrath then to a dad who has told his child not to run into the road, the child runs, the dad is angry in snatching hold of the child and pulling him/her back and the quick angry reaction was an act of mercy.

Here are some verses which I think support this view:

Psa 99:8 O LORD our God; You were to them God-Who-Forgives, THOUGH You took vengeance on their deeds.
Lam 3:31-32 For the Lord will not cast off forever. Though He causes grief, YET He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies.

Isa 54:8 With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you,” says the LORD, your Redeemer.

Isa 60:10b For in My wrath I struck you, but in My favor I have had mercy on you.

Jer 10:24 O LORD, correct me, but with justice; not in Your anger, lest You bring me to nothing.

 

[Andrewn]

"In passing over Gregory of Nyssa for condemnation, the church, which was fast becoming anti-Origenian, had to bring his work into line, for having such a high profile theologian “off message” was not good. Gregory’s ideas concerning the purifying nature of otherworldly suffering were applied to purgatory, rather than Gehenna, to allow for the erroneous conclusion that Gregory admitted of the eternity of hell.

I have to assume that the famous theologian Metropolitan Kallistos Ware have studied Gregory of Nyssa carefully. The Metropolitan is not a supporter not denies the possibility of UR but in one of his lectures he said he wasn't sure why Gregory was not condemned. Then he added that it could be because his older brother was Basil the Great .

 

[Ceallaigh]

I have to assume that the famous theologian Metropolitan Kallistos Ware have studied Gregory of Nyssa carefully. The Metropolitan is not a supporter not denies the possibility of UR but in one of his lectures he said he wasn't sure why Gregory was not condemned. Then he added that it could be because his older brother was Basil the Great .

Ware is on good terms with well known universalist Brad Jersak, who also has a close association with Archbishop Lazar.