Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Andrewn]

If you're talking approximations then I'd say, broadly speaking, not having the exact numbers to hand, and rounding up to the nearest whole number, an eventual 100%.

The question was, "What percentage do you think would be lost forever?" To this you replied, "an eventual 100%." You're worse than ECT believers .

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I also wonder if some folks just want other folks to suffer forever.

... I guess I have to sheepishly admit to everyone, "Yeah, I kind of do want some folks to suffer eternal consequences..." Mainly because I believe there is such a thing as 'radical evil,' and I've always thought it needs to be obliterated. And I've always thought a truly Good and Holy God would ...

But, what do I know? I'm just a mere ignorant person, and all I do is sit around reading about the ugliness of world history and other human dysfunctions in books like:

The Sociopath Next Door - Martha Stout

A Serial Killer's Daughter - Kerri Rawson

Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society - Ted Peters​

 

[public hermit]

... I guess I have to sheepishly admit to everyone, "Yeah, I kind of do want some folks to suffer eternal consequences..." Mainly because I believe there is such a thing as 'radical evil,' and I've always thought it needs to be obliterated. And I've always thought a truly Good and Holy God would ...

But, what do I know? I'm just a mere ignorant person, and all I do is sit around reading about the ugliness of world history and other human dysfunctions in books like:

The Sociopath Next Door - Martha Stout

A Serial Killer's Daughter - Kerri Rawson

Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society - Ted Peters​

Okay, there are some candidates out there. This brings up the question: is eternal punishment/suffering commensurate with horrendous evils committed in finite time and space? I guess Hitler or some such is the obvious example. I don't know, but maybe.

Still, even if we allow that there are some that have committed evils that are so horrendous they require a severe divine response, is that justification for a doctrine that says many (most?) will be eternally punished for much lesser crimes? If the doctrine of ECT pertained only to the very worst, it would be a difficult doctrine, but not the absurd one that says people are punished eternally for lying, resenting, and not believing (or whatever set of sins obtain).

Perhaps the worst are annihilated? I bet we could find a verse that implies as much. But, wonder of wonders, what if the eternal love of God can redeem the worst of the worst? Impossible? I don't think so.

 

[Saint Steven]

There is actually a new Mainline translation that does something similar:

Mar 2:10 But so you will know that the Human One has authority on the earth to forgive sins”—he said to the man who was paralyzed,11 “Get up, take your mat, and go home.”

CEB© 2011

CEB is the Common English Bible, to be distinguished from the CSB (Christian Standard Bible) that I often quote from.

That's the Common English Bible. Available on Bible Gateway.

I was too.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! (flame on) I am the great and powerful Oz! (flame on)... "

Toto to the rescue...

 

[Andrewn]

Being raised as a Damnationist, I "knew" that "hell" was biblical. Who could question that? I was all over it with chapter and verse. I didn't give it much thought until a sister-in-law said she couldn't believe in a God who would "send people to hell".

Perhaps ECT is like Santa Claus. People question his reality at different ages.

 

[Hmm]

The question was, "What percentage do you think would be lost forever?" To this you replied, "an eventual 100%." You're worse than ECT believers .

Thanks. Edited that! A slight adjustment from 100% to 0%.

 

[Saint Steven]

Perhaps the worst are annihilated? I bet we could find a verse that implies as much. But, wonder of wonders, what if the eternal love of God can redeem the worst of the worst? Impossible? I don't think so.

Right. I think somehow the grace of God is BIGGER than anything we can throw at it. That the price paid for the redemption of humankind was ALL sufficient. No one is TOO far gone for God to rehabilitate.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? It seems to me that anything more than a bus load into ECT is overkill. And even then, why maintain such a thing for all eternity? Who wins? Not God.

 

[Saint Steven]

Thanks. Edited that! A slight adjustment from 100% to 0%.

Decimal points are very dangerous. Careful where you put them. lol

 

[Hmm]

Perhaps ECT is like Santa Claus. People question his reality at different ages.

Look! He's having a go at Santa Claus now!
Typical.

- an anonymous member of Team Hell.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, there are some candidates out there. This brings up the question: is eternal punishment/suffering commensurate with horrendous evils committed in finite time and space? I guess Hitler or some such is the obvious example. I don't know, but maybe.

Still, even if we allow that there are some that have committed evils that are so horrendous they require a severe divine response, is that justification for a doctrine that says many (most?) will be eternally punished forever for much lesser crimes? If the doctrine of ECT pertained only to the very worst, it would be a difficult doctrine, but not the absurd one that says people are punished eternally for lying, resenting, and not believing (or whatever set of sins obtain).

Perhaps the worst are annihilated? I bet we could find a verse that implies as much. But, wonder of wonders, what if the eternal love of God can redeem the worst of the worst? Impossible? I don't think so.

All I see here on both sides of this debate---neither side of which I subscribe to---is a bunch of obscured, non-methodological, cherry-picked flotsam and jetsam of hubris.

For me, the ONLY answer that matters isn't the one we can guess at in any and all human level directions, but the actual answer, whatever that actual answer is in reality.

And if after applying the most meticulous of exegetical and hermeneutical methods of deliberation we believe we can muster for our bibles we still can't come to a definite conclusion, then I think the best answer is: "Well Hell, we just don't know. But unrepentant evil, beware ! Beware ! "

 

[Andrewn]

Decimal points are very dangerous. Careful where you put them. lol

Remember @Hmm is a mathematician .

 

[public hermit]

Right. I think somehow the grace of God is BIGGER than anything we can throw at it. That the price paid for the redemption of humankind was ALL sufficient. No one is TOO far gone for God to rehabilitate.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? It seems to me that anything more than a bus load into ECT is overkill. And even then, why maintain such a thing for all eternity? Who wins? Not God.

Besides issues regarding the translation of "eternal," this is why I view hell as remedial. Or better, this is why I consider a less hidden divine love and glory as being remedial. At what point in eternity do we look over at Hitler in the lake of fire and wonder, "What's the point?"

ECT aside, I see the heaven/hell distinction as a subjective experience in relation to the divine presence. The closer we are to the divine presence the clearer is revealed in us what is of God and what is not. Of course, our created being is God's. But what we have done and who we have become can either be of God or not. It would be hell to enter the divine presence and discover the "I" that I was is actually nothing and cannot persist forever in the divine presence. What am I, if I don't have love? Nothing, or nothing that can endure. In that sense, I can see hell as torturous and annihilating. But I seriously doubt God destroys or tortures eternally the good that God brings into existence.

 

[public hermit]

"Well Hell, we just don't know. But unrepentant evil, beware ! Beware !

I think that is a reasonable position. It leaves open possibilities, which I think is a justified outcome even after examining the scriptural witness.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Okay, there are some candidates out there. This brings up the question: is eternal punishment/suffering commensurate with horrendous evils committed in finite time and space? I guess Hitler or some such is the obvious example. I don't know, but maybe.

Still, even if we allow that there are some that have committed evils that are so horrendous they require a severe divine response, is that justification for a doctrine that says many (most?) will be eternally punished for much lesser crimes? If the doctrine of ECT pertained only to the very worst, it would be a difficult doctrine, but not the absurd one that says people are punished eternally for lying, resenting, and not believing (or whatever set of sins obtain).

Perhaps the worst are annihilated? I bet we could find a verse that implies as much. But, wonder of wonders, what if the eternal love of God can redeem the worst of the worst? Impossible? I don't think so.

Reasonable as this sounds, doesn't it reflect exactly what the problem is with almost all discussions of fringe positions such as universalism? Inevitably, it seems to me, the proponents do two things: (1) they ignore the clear thrust of the Bible and seize upon verses that, often taken out of context. "could" be interpreted to support their position; and (2) more significantly, they substitute their very human notions of the way God "should be" or "ought to be" or "I'd be if I were God."

God is the transcendent eternal Creator whose ways are not our ways and thoughts are not our thoughts. He has communicated what He wants to communicate in the Bible. On the issue of a distinctly different and unpleasant fate for the unsaved, there is little wiggle room - except by doing the two things identified in the preceding paragraph. This is why universalism has never been more than a tiny fringe position that was regarded as unbiblical and dangerous by the vast majority of Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants.

Inevitably, it seems to me, these fringe positions dilute the Gospel, sometimes past the point of what is recognizable as Christianity. Almost always, the watering down is in the direction of a benign, toothless, endlessly tolerant, non-judgmental God and Gospel that pretty much takes God's holy justice out of the equation. This is why I believe the increasing interest in universalism is characteristic of what the Bible says will occur in the End Times.

This is why the position I have arrived at after 52 years as a born-again Christian, involving extensive studies of theology and apologetics across the entire spectrum, is that (1) I must accept the pretty clear and unequivocal biblical position, counterintuitive and even unpalatable as it may seem to my human sensibilities, and (2) I will simply trust that the fate of the unsaved, even if it is eternal torment as the Bible strongly indicates, will be seen to be consistent with the perfectly holy, perfectly loving, perfectly just God in whom I believe and whose eternal transcendent perspective I can't even comprehend.

The God of universalism isn't bigger than mine, as universalists like to think. He's way, way smaller.

I previously "bowed out" of this thread, and will do so again, for two reasons: (1) consistent with my extensive previous discussions of topics such as this on internet forums over a period of more than 25 years, Saint Steven was clearly becoming very upset, past the point where further discussion was likely to be edifying or worthwhile; and (2) as we see here, these discussions never go anywhere - say what you will, those who hold fringe positions typically are one-dimensional Christians whose fringe positions are the only doctrines they really even care about. They are not interested in discussion, at least if it involves serious, substantive challenge to their fringe ideas; they are only interested in "Gotchas!" and shouting down those who hold to traditional theology.

 

[Ceallaigh]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! (flame on) I am the great and powerful Oz! (flame on)... "

Toto to the rescue...

The way Paul Harvey's The Rest of the Story worked, is first he'd tell you all about the Great and Powerful Oz. Then he'd tell you about the man behind the curtain, and conclude by saying, "and now you know the rest of the story".

 

[public hermit]

Reasonable as this sounds, doesn't it reflect exactly what the problem is with almost all discussions of fringe positions such as universalism?

I would consider ECT a fringe position. If UR is the claim that how we live doesn't matter, that too is fringe. In my mind, a non-fringe position would be a remedial hell that allows for the possibility of UR. But, you know, maybe some folks can hate goodness forever. I don't know.

(1) I must accept the pretty clear and unequivocal biblical position, counterintuitive and even unpalatable as it may seem to my human sensibilities

I disagree that the set of passages we have are clear and unequivocal. If we isolate some, sure, but that's the problem. The biblical witness as a whole is ambiguous on this issue, I think.

I will simply trust that the fate of the unsaved, even if it is eternal torment as the Bible strongly indicates, will be seen to be consistent with the perfectly holy, perfectly loving, perfectly just God in whom I believe and whose eternal transcendent perspective I can't even comprehend

If that's the case, then surely it would be good. The problem is, it seems awfully not-good. The fact someone says, well if ECT is true it must be good indicates it seems not very good at all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Remember @Hmm is a mathematician .

So was Morris Kline ...

 

[Lazarus Short]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! (flame on) I am the great and powerful Oz! (flame on)... "

Toto to the rescue...

That's what happens when you're not in Kansas anymore...

 

[Hmm]

So was Morris Kline ...

That's a good (decimal) point.

 

[hedrick]

Okay, there are some candidates out there. This brings up the question: is eternal punishment/suffering commensurate with horrendous evils committed in finite time and space? I guess Hitler or some such is the obvious example. I don't know, but maybe.

Still, even if we allow that there are some that have committed evils that are so horrendous they require a severe divine response, is that justification for a doctrine that says many (most?) will be eternally punished forever for much lesser crimes? If the doctrine of ECT pertained only to the very worst, it would be a difficult doctrine, but not the absurd one that says people are punished eternally for lying, resenting, and not believing (or whatever set of sins obtain).

Perhaps the worst are annihilated? I bet we could find a verse that implies as much. But, wonder of wonders, what if the eternal love of God can redeem the worst of the worst? Impossible? I don't think so.

I think being in Christ changes people. God doesn’t just overlook sin, but overcomes it. So in principle the people you describe could be saved.

Jesus proclaims forgiveness and reconciliation. If you’ve been reading this discussion, you’ll know that I’ve said I think Jesus’ use of Gehenna typically referred to accountability, not damnation, and thus was finite. I’ve been reading a book about Jesus’ parables, which suggests that I’m wrong. God simply forgives us — there’s no remaining accountability. In that reading, the punishments we see are for those who reject the Gospel and refuse its forgiveness. For them, what can be remaining but being judged by your works, which Jesus portrays using then-current imagery of judgement, as well as other images.

Will that kind of rejection actually happen? If so, I hope it’s only a few people. The people I know might at times be short-sighted, confused and afraid, but not intentionally evil. I think most, being confronted by the reality of God, would accept forgiveness. The most stubborn about insisting on judgement seem in fact to be Christian, though there are surely equivalents in other religions and ideologies. But 2PhiloVoid brings up another category, and I think he’s right that it exists. I don’t think we can state as a matter of doctrine that everyone will be saved, and I think there’s real possibility that they won’t, even though I hope they will.

Will rejection result in something that is literally eternal maggots and fire? I’m skeptical, just as I am skeptical that the end of the Revelation is a very literal description of resurrection life. I also think an eternal realm of rebels is inconsistent with all ending up in Christ. It’s a kind of defeat for God.

God has to reject evil. Some people have suggested that a remnant of those lives may remain. Some writers that intend to be orthodox about hell have suggested that the damned don’t live in the same way as the redeemed, that there is some remnant, but it is no longer human, since it has rejected the basis for humanity. I doubt there would be enough to be conscious of torment.

However 1 Cor 15 and I think even the end of the Revelation don’t seem consistent with any evil remains. So I’m more inclined to think that Jesus’ use of Gehenna is one of many ways of talking about the consequences of refusing grace, but not meant literally. If anyone actually does end up that way, I don’t think they survive.

Der Alte asked what reason we have to think that Jesus didn’t hold current Jewish views of judgement, since he used some of their descriptions. I would suggest that his whole ministry rejects it. First, by and large Gehenna, temporary and permanent, was about sin. But Jesus’ judgement wasn’t for sin. It was for refusing the Gospel of God’s grace. Gehenna was part of a system in which God dealt with sin by punishment. But within that system the Messiah would have come with a sword. Instead God actually dealt with sin using a cross. I think that’s a rejection of the whole framework of which Gehenna is a part.

If you reject the cross you get Gehenna. But ultimately I don't think you can choose which of two universes you live in. You can't really get rid of the cross.