Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Servus]

I'm not sure why I would be difficult to understand, especially in so far as I have been stressing the power of the cross over death. No, your attempt to reformulate my argument entirely misses the point that I made in the first instance, which is that if the cross spares all from death and not simply those who join in Christ's death through baptism(as the Bible indicates) then it is rendered moot.

So if Christ's cross saves only those who get dipped in or sprinkled with water, then it has meaning. But if it saves everyone, then it's meaningless. And if everyone is going to end up being saved, then there was no point in the cross, since everyone was going to end up saved anyways. However the only reason why either only a few or all will end up saved is because of the cross. Whether it's limited salvation or universal salvation, neither would be possible without Christ's cross.

Those who receive the gospel in this life are not spared from anything via the cross under that viewpoint, as it would indicate that they would still suffer the penalty for their sins. And if they are spared, what they are spared from is corrective punishment meaning they do not receive the perfection that such a punishment would provide. So the cross becomes either a hindrance to perfection, or an idle point accomplishing nothing for those who receive it in faith.

Well again, that seems to only work if one limits receiving the gospel and being a disciple of Christ to only having one single benefit, which is being spared from punishment that's solely retributive. And if that's all there was to be gained in being a disciple of Christ, then it seems we would have a much shorter Bible.

As far as correction goes, Jesus makes a clear distinction between the healthy who aren't in need of a physician, and those who are sick and in need of healing (Mark 2:17). Disciples of Christ have already been made healthy. Therefore they wouldn't be missing out on anything by missing out on corrective punishment that heals.

 

[Hmm]

Christ's victory over sin and death is a combination package. But putting aside the former and addressing the later, it seems your contention is that if everyone receives eternal life, that renders the Cross null and void. That the Cross only has significance if only a remnant receive eternal life. And I suppose that also entails the remnant earning eternal life in some way, to make them worthy of it?

That seems to be the argument, that the cross is a zero sum game: for there to be winners, there has to be losers. And, as you say, the winners get there by their own efforts by making sure they believe the right things, unless predestination is about to enter stage left here.

 

[Andrewn]

To me, the EO church has the most clarity on it and their reverence for the universalist Gregory of Nyssa, the "father of fathers, no doubt plays an important part in that;

There are EO theologians who may believe in UR. But the EO Church officially does not. It still upholds the canons of the Synod of Constantinople (543) of which the 9th states:

"If anyone says or holds that the punishment of demons and impious human beings is temporary and that it will have an end at some time, and that there will be a restoration of demons and impious human beings, let him be anathema."

 

[Andrewn]

It's a common misnomer that universalism teaches there's no punishment in hell.

This seems to be what many in Mainline Protestantism believe.

What's different is the view that it's corrective punishment that lasts an age, rather than being everlasting torment with no purpose behind the torment other than retribution.

The earth is 4543 million years old and look at all the changes that have taking place. Can we even begin to imagine what the changes that will take place in endless eternity will look like?!!

 

[Saint Steven]

It's a common misnomer that universalism teaches there's no punishment in hell. What's different is the view that it's corrective punishment that lasts an age, rather than being everlasting torment with no purpose behind the torment other than retribution.

I bristle at the word "punishment".
Although I understand that punishment can be used to correct behavior.

But I see the restorative process, though painful emotionally (wailing and gnashing of teeth), to not be painful physically. Which raises questions about what sort of body we enter the afterlife with. Although, if we can wail and gnash our teeth, that says plenty right there.

I imagine that the restoration of those in need will be like the wood, hay and stubble that burns, leaving the precious metals, etc. And the one left with nothing, as one who escapes through the flames. (total loss, but saved)

 

[Andrewn]

I would suggest that the fires of Gehenna are actually our remorse when confronted with the full implications of what we did and failed to do. It's certainly possible that there are people who are so opposed to God's purposes that that kind of confrontation won't work. That's why I've never fully committed to universalism.

This is my view, also, except that I understand from Joh 5:28-29 (and Revelation) that for severely hardened and evil people, rehabilitative punishment may continue after the resurrection in the LoF for a time. Perhaps few whose evil may have consumed their personality, will be completely destroyed in the process.

 

[Hmm]

There are EO theologians who may believe in UR. But the EO Church officially does not. It still upholds the canons of the Synod of Constantinople (543) of which the 9th states:

"If anyone says or holds that the punishment of demons and impious human beings is temporary and that it will have an end at some time, and that there will be a restoration of demons and impious human beings, let him be anathema."

Thanks for the info. Would you say though that the fact that the EO church has not anathemetized but rather holds universalists such as Gregory of Nyssa in high regard is a de facto rejection of anathema #9?

Also, looking at the wording of #9 it seems to apply to the impious only while they remain impious, and similarly with the demons. But since with universalism, salvation means that the impious cease to be impious when they experience the reality of their impiety, this anathema does not seem to be applicable to the question of universal salvation.

 

[Andrewn]

Christian universalism is Christocentric. You are continually talking about something else, although I've no idea what.

I think @Fervent means that UR contradicts the Penal Substitution theory of Atonement.

 

[Hmm]

I think @Fervent means that UR contradicts the Penal Substitution theory of Atonement.

If that's his point then he's correct. It follows the Christus Victor model instead, as does the EO church and as did the early church.

 

[Andrewn]

So if Christ's cross saves only those who get dipped in or sprinkled with water, then it has meaning. But if it saves everyone, then it's meaningless.

In shady, green pastures so rich and so sweet
God leads His dear children along
Where the water's cool flow bathes the weary one's feet
God leads His dear children along

Some through the water, some through the flood
Some through the fire, but all through the blood
And some through great sorrow, but God gives the song
In the night season and all the day long

 

[Hmm]

I bristle at the word "punishment".

I do too but I think the word "punishment" is superfluous and probably not particularly helpful. You could just say "correction" or "education" rather than "corrective punishment" or "educative/remedial punishment". They would mean the same thing in the universalist paradigm.

 

[Saint Steven]

I do too but I think the word "punishment" is superfluous and probably not particularly helpful. You could just say "correction" or "education" rather than "corrective punishment" or "educative/remedial punishment". They would mean the same thing in the universalist paradigm.

I even think of it more like healing. The work of the great physician, not like a beating from a torturer, seeking to extract the desired confession.

 

[Andrewn]

Would you say though that the fact that the EO church has not anathemetized but rather holds universalists such as Gregory of Nyssa in high regard is a de facto rejection of anathema #9?

No, I think the average EO parish priest is not very different from Evangelical pastors. I think they read and listen to too many Evangelicals. Bishop Kallistos Ware, in one of his lectures, said that he didn't know why Gregory of Nyssa was not anathematized. He jokingly added that it could be because he was the younger brother of Basil the Great .

Also, looking at the wording of #9 it seems to apply to the impious only while they remain impious, and similarly with the demons. But since with universalism, salvation means that the impious cease to be impious when they experience the reality of their impiety, this anathema does not seem to be applicable to the question of universal salvation.

I noticed this and also that Origen is not mentioned by name in any of those anathemas.

 

[Hmm]

I even think of it more like healing. The work of the great physician, not like a beating from a torturer, seeking to extract the desired confession.

Gound point, healing is probably the best word to use. Perhaps education, and correction in the sense of "making right", is part of that though because we all have to reach the point where we freely and gladly confess Christ as Lord. We have to learn something about God, and unlearn a lot too probably, to be able to do this.

 

[Hmm]

No, I think the average EO parish priest is not very different from Evangelical pastors.

That's a pity!

 

[Hmm]

Wow, 200 pages filled with things not to like about Christian universalism! Oh, wait... sorry, not one thing yet

 

[Fervent]

I think @Fervent means that UR contradicts the Penal Substitution theory of Atonement.

It doesn't really matter what atonement model is used, UR renders the gospel void.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wow, 200 pages filled with things not to like about Christian universalism! Oh, wait... sorry, not one thing yet

That kind of sounds like gaslighting.

 

[Fervent]

So if Christ's cross saves only those who get dipped in or sprinkled with water, then it has meaning. But if it saves everyone, then it's meaningless. And if everyone is going to end up being saved, then there was no point in the cross, since everyone was going to end up saved anyways. However the only reason why either only a few or all will end up saved is because of the cross. Whether it's limited salvation or universal salvation, neither would be possible without Christ's cross.



Well again, that seems to only work if one limits receiving the gospel and being a disciple of Christ to only having one single benefit, which is being spared from punishment that's solely retributive. And if that's all there was to be gained in being a disciple of Christ, then it seems we would have a much shorter Bible.

As far as correction goes, Jesus makes a clear distinction between the healthy who aren't in need of a physician, and those who are sick and in need of healing (Mark 2:17). Disciples of Christ have already been made healthy. Therefore they wouldn't be missing out on anything by missing out on corrective punishment that heals.

No, it doesn't only work if it is a single benefit. The gospel is the hope worth dying for, the benefits that precede death are trivial in comparison to what the martyrs laid down their life for. If that hope is not an exclusive one, then the gospel that the martyrs believed is void. They laid down their lives and kept the gospel for nothing.

 

[Hmm]

That kind of sounds like gaslighting.

?