Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Andrewn]

Made after the image of God is not the same thing as being the image of God. This is where the historic version of universalism and modern universalist positions part ways, as what was generally understood to happen is that the image was burned off of the wicked, restoring the humanity that was once present in them while remanding their wills to eternal torment.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Where do the historic version of universalism and modern universalist positions part ways?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I assume that in your Annihilationist view some people are resurrected to be judged and annihilated. Are these a majority (all non-Christians) or a tiny minority (those who still reject Christ in Hades)? And if it is the former case, is there a function for Hades? Why aren't they annihilated immediately after death?

Rather than lay out a specific answer, I'll keep this short since this thread isn't about my viewpoint but about UR. I'll just say that my approach to Annihilationism will be a different, more tenuous, and much more generalist form from the typical notion of it that I'm sure we've all heard about.

Moreover, my view is non-comprehensive since (along with Kierkegaard), I don't think various attempts and methods of Systematic Theology really obtain the kinds of answers we sometimes think we gain in our denominational group-think, and therefore I don't perceive there is an answer to find in the Bible for every question we may wish to entertain about human life and final human eschatology. In my more existential estimation, some questions will simply remain open and unanswerable on this side of the grave and this (again, existentially speaking) is just the way it is.

Secondly, with whatever interpretive effects that Hermeneutics, Exegesis and diverse fields of Philosophy may afford us, however limited in extent their respective results can be, what I personally end up with is more or less an "Inclusivist Median" in loose association to my Annihilationistic leanings.

I, therefore, don't deign to determine, nor insist upon, that there will be either a majority or a minority of 'non-believers' who pass into oblivion, nor do I assert to know exactly how or exactly when after death their extinction of soul will take place. What I might insist upon is in perceiving when and where there may be inconsistencies in the supposedly more systematic theological conclusions that are offered by other people.

And that's it.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Where do the historic version of universalism and modern universalist positions part ways?

Modern universalist positions forward that all individuals will be eventually restored, whereas historic universalism holds that the entirety of "humanity" will be restored even though individuals will still go to hell. Historic philosophies present a demarcation between the image that is placed within men, and the men themselves. So historic universalist positions are compatible with the existence of a populated eternal hell, while modern universalist positions deny the existence of such.

 

[Der Alte]

If Paul had intended to say it wasn’t a done deal he wouldn’t have made the two points parallel each other.

Wrong! The verses plural that I have and can post trump the imagined controlling parallelism. And OBTW the subjunctive is an undisputed fact. Along with the other points I have made and which you have ignored.
Here are other verses where Paul addresses this topic. Twenty two categories of people who have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

This is simply my opinion and my high standard of doing things, so it’s not intended as a slight on you. But if your Greek knowledge is based upon copying and pasting to others from an online interlinear, then you don’t know Greek. Almost everyone online does this and they don’t know Greek either.

I guess your "high standard of doing things," does not extend to addressing the verses I quoted.
I started learning to speak Greek in the late 50s in Germany overseeing Greek workers in Germany and studied Greek formally at the graduate level about 2 decades later. I'm not an expert but knowledgeable enough to know when people are trying to snow me.
You challenged me on the subjunctive, I provided evidence which you ignored.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Wrong! The verses plural that I have and can post trump the imagined controlling parallelism. And OBTW the subjunctive is an undisputed fact. Along with the other points I have made and which you have ignored.
Here are other verses where Paul addresses this topic. Twenty two categories of people who have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

I guess your "high standard of doing things," does not extend to addressing the verses I quoted.
I started learning to speak Greek in the late 50s in Germany overseeing Greek workers in Germany and studied Greek formally at the graduate level about 2 decades later. I'm not an expert but knowledgeable enough to know when people are trying to snow me.
You challenged me on the subjunctive, I provided evidence which you ignored.

Der Alte,

I was wondering if the debate around 'eternal' could be further resolved by looking at the usage of aidios in the septuagint and seeing if the Hebrew indeed confirmed 'never ending'...

 

[Fervent]

Der Alte,

I was wondering if the debate around 'eternal' could be further resolved by looking at the usage of aidios in the septuagint and seeing if the Hebrew indeed confirmed 'never ending'...

I know this wasn't directed at me, but that can only make a tenuous case at best. The Hebrew word that is often translated as "everlasting" or "eternal" is more literally translated as indeterminately long. Given the concrete nature of the ancient Hebrews thinking there wasn't truly a way to conceptualize infinites, especially since the language primarily relies on pictoral representation(the letters are each actually patterned after images such as Bet being a house and the words combined those pictures so that the image displayed conveyed the thought within it.)

 

[Carl Emerson]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but that can only make a tenuous case at best. The Hebrew word that is often translated as "everlasting" or "eternal" is more literally translated as indeterminately long. Given the concrete nature of the ancient Hebrews thinking there wasn't truly a way to conceptualize infinites, especially since the language primarily relies on pictoral representation(the letters are each actually patterned after images such as Bet being a house and the words combined those pictures so that the image displayed conveyed the thought within it.)

Ok thanks for that - similar to Chinese.

There was a book published about the Gospel being embedded in Chinese Characters by Leslie Francis if I recall. But I digress...

 

[Hmm]

Modern universalist positions forward that all individuals will be eventually restored, whereas historic universalism holds that the entirety of "humanity" will be restored even though individuals will still go to hell.

I've never come across that idea before and I've read a fair amount about Christian universalism. As it clearly makes no sense to say that all of humanity (why did you put the word in scare quotes?) will be restored but not all the individuals within it, are you able to explain this further and/or cite a reputable source that says that this was the early universalist view?

 

[Andrewn]

Historic philosophies present a demarcation between the image that is placed within men, and the men themselves. So historic universalist positions are compatible with the existence of a populated eternal hell,

Apocatastasis with a populated endless hell (I assume you mean LOF) seems like a contradiction in terms. I haven't read historic universalists and have to depend on secondary sources. Here is some of what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about historic Apocatastasis:

"This doctrine was explicitly taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in more than one passage. It first occurs in his "De animâ et resurrectione" (P.G., XLVI, cols. 100, 101) where, in speaking of the punishment by fire assigned to souls after death, he compares it to the process whereby gold is refined in a furnace, through being separated from the dross with which it is alloyed. The punishment by fire is not, therefore, an end in itself, but is ameliorative; the very reason of its infliction is to separate the good from the evil in the soul. The process, moreover, is a painful one; the sharpness and duration of the pain are in proportion to the evil of which each soul is guilty; the flame lasts so long as there is any evil left to destroy. A time, then, will come, when all evil shall cease to be since it has no existence of its own apart from the free will, in which it inheres; when every free will shall be turned to God, shall be in God, and evil shall have no more wherein to exist. Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa continues, shall the word of St. Paul be fulfilled: Deus erit omnia in omnibus (1 Corinthians 15:28), which means that evil shall, ultimately, have an end, since, if God be all in all, there is no longer any place for evil (cols. 104, 105; cf. col. 152)."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

I realize that in the EO view, "The purifying fire is uncreated and unending." But this clearly doesn't mean that the individual purification process is endless.

 

[Der Alte]

Apocatastasis with a populated endless hell (I assume you mean LOF) seems like a contradiction in terms. I haven't read historic universalists and have to depend on secondary sources. Here is some of what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about historic Apocatastasis:
"This doctrine was explicitly taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in more than one passage. It first occurs in his "De animâ et resurrectione" (P.G., XLVI, cols. 100, 101) where, in speaking of the punishment by fire assigned to souls after death, he compares it to the process whereby gold is refined in a furnace, through being separated from the dross with which it is alloyed. The punishment by fire is not, therefore, an end in itself, but is ameliorative; the very reason of its infliction is to separate the good from the evil in the soul. The process, moreover, is a painful one; the sharpness and duration of the pain are in proportion to the evil of which each soul is guilty; the flame lasts so long as there is any evil left to destroy. A time, then, will come, when all evil shall cease to be since it has no existence of its own apart from the free will, in which it inheres; when every free will shall be turned to God, shall be in God, and evil shall have no more wherein to exist. Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa continues, shall the word of St. Paul be fulfilled: Deus erit omnia in omnibus (1 Corinthians 15:28), which means that evil shall, ultimately, have an end, since, if God be all in all, there is no longer any place for evil (cols. 104, 105; cf. col. 152)."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm
I realize that in the EO view, "The purifying fire is uncreated and unending." But this clearly doesn't mean that the individual purification process is endless.

Very comforting words, unfortunately Ol' Greg did not quote any scripture in support of his views. See e.g.
και απελευσονται ουτοι εις κολασιν αιωνιον οι δε δικαιοι εις ζωην αιωνιον

 

[Hmm]

Very comforting words, unfortunately Ol' Greg did not quote any scripture in support of his views.

Do you think that because something is comforting it must thereby be false? Isn't the gospel supposed to be Good News? And the Holy Spirit the Comforter?

Gregory wrote extensively and played a major role.in drawing up the Nicene Creed. He is known as the "father or fathers". To say he never quotes scripture is absurd.

 

[Der Alte]

Do you think that because something is comforting it must thereby be false? Isn't the gospel supposed to be Good News? And the Holy Spirit the Comforter?
Gregory wrote extensively and played a major role.in drawing up the Nicene Creed. He is known as the "father or fathers". To say he never quotes scripture is absurd.

Please show me where I used the word "never?" In what was quoted no scripture is cited. If someone has a Gregory quote which includes scripture I would be glad to give it a read. Wonder how many ECF, prior to Gregory, supported UR, with scripture. Origen is often quoted as if he was the ECF poster boy for UR. Did you know that Origen gave us a bullet proof definition of "aionios" as "eternal,""everlasting,""forever" etc? I stumbled on this while researching another UR-ites claim that "Origen often spoke about 'after eternal life.'"

(59) He [Heracleon] is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power. [John 4:14]
(60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.
(61) He would be correct when he grants that the first life perishes if he meant that life which is according to the letter, when it seeks and discovers the life according to the Spirit by the removal of the veil.
[1] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 67–69). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.​

 

[Hmm]

If someone has a Gregory quote which includes scripture I would be glad to give it a read.

Have a read of this then from #1089:

Absolutely. I find this quote from Gregory of Nyssa very inspiring:
“As mediator between God and man [1 Tim 2.5]. He who is in the Father and has lived with men accomplishes intercession. Christ unites all mankind to himself, and to the Father through himself, as the Lord says in the Gospel, ‘As you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, that they may be one in us’ [Jn 17.21]. This clearly shows that having united himself to us, he who is in the Father effects our union with this very same Father.”
This idea of Christ as a mediator ( ladder, bridge, intercessor) between God and man is a very powerful one when understood more fully. Christ never failed us and He will not fail in this role of drawing us all into union with the Father.

This is St Gregory of Nyssa (this is the real name of the person you refer to as "ol' Greg") quoting scripture.

I'm sure this won't be acceptable to you and you'll find some reason to reject it. I'm aware I haven't given the source of the quote but I'm going to leave that for you to find if you feel you need it

 

[Der Alte]

* * *

<QUOTE="Hmm">Absolutely. I find this quote from Gregory of Nyssa very inspiring:
“As mediator between God and man [1 Tim 2.5]. He who is in the Father and has lived with men accomplishes intercession. Christ unites all mankind to himself, and to the Father through himself, as the Lord says in the Gospel,</QUOTE>​

1 Tim 2:5 is not a guarantee that all mankind will be united to Jesus and the Father.

<quote>‘As you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, that they may be one in us’ [Jn 17.21]. This clearly shows that having united himself to us, he who is in the Father effects our union with this very same Father.”</QUOTE>​

No it does NOT clearly show that! "That they MAY be one in us." Is a subjunctive which you refuse to accept. Remember the 22 categories of sinners whom Paul said have NO inheritance in the kingdom of God?

<QUOTE>This idea of Christ as a mediator ( ladder, bridge, intercessor) between God and man is a very powerful one when understood more fully. Christ never failed us and He will not fail in this role of drawing us all into union with the Father.</QUOTE>​

Jesus said "I never knew you. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
The dead cannot do the will of the Father.
Jesus is outside of time, just like the Father, when Jesus says "Never," He is not just talking about the past.
FYI I have been teaching and preaching through the Bible since Carter was president. I don't have it memorized but am familiar enough with it that whenever someone quotes a UR proof text I usually know of the scripture which refutes it.

 

[Hmm]

FYI I have been teaching and preaching through the Bible since Carter was president.

And fyi, for anyone on a journey, it's not how long they've been on the road that's important but how far down it they've gone.

 

[Der Alte]

And fyi, for anyone on a journey, it's not how long they've been on the road that's important but how far down it they've gone.

Snark, snark. Just a point of reference to make the point I did.

 

[Carl Emerson]

And fyi, for anyone on a journey, it's not how long they've been on the road that's important but how far down it they've gone.

How far they have gone is less important than what direction they have gone in...

 

[Hmm]

How far they have gone is less important than what direction they have gone in...

Absolutely.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Just to say the "they" in John 17:21 are the believers, not the world. This is clear form the context of the prayer.

 

[hedrick]

Very comforting words, unfortunately Ol' Greg did not quote any scripture in support of his views. See e.g.
και απελευσονται ουτοι εις κολασιν αιωνιον οι δε δικαιοι εις ζωην αιωνιον

In the very passage you responded to, he quoted 1 Cor. Some of the passages cited here seem unconvincing, but 1 Cor 15 can plausibly be read as universalist. I can see other possibilities as well, but it’s a straightforward reading of the passage.