Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

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?"

I see into the darkness even deeper than that. (ready for some REAL heresy?)

Can ALL creation be restored if even the demons and Satan himself is not redeemed? Every tongue and every knee...

I imagine Satan being the last one out. And what a COMPLETE victory that will be. Then EVERY enemy will be brought into line under the authority of Christ.

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

Yup. I like these as descriptors.

Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

Malachi 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

 

[Ceallaigh]

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.

I recall you saying you leaned towards Eastern Orthodoxy. Now when I joined CF, it had been a long time since I had explored or talked about universalism. When I read a thread about it here it rekindled my interest some. And along the way, someone who's also in this thread sent me a short video where an Eastern Orthodox clergyman gave a demonstration of the Orthodox view of salvation compared to the Protestant view. And I was floored by how close the Orthodox view came to universalism. As the person who sent me the video said, it brought it full circle. Also there's evidence that for the first four or five hundred years of the church, universalism was more of a majority view, and eternal conscious torment was more of a fringe view. Now that doesn't prove universalism, but it does show that unlike other views considered to be fringe, it actually started out as an original longstanding ancient orthodox view.

And here's the Eastern Orthodox view of Hell

This could be why two of the most prominent proponents of universalism, David Bentley Heart and Brad Jersak, are Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Andrewn]

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?

I don't see the dichotomy as being whether 0% or 90% will not be saved. As you wrote, "maybe some folks can hate goodness forever. I don't know." The question, for me, is whether post-mortem progression is possible at all.

In the Bible we see hints that God wants all to be saved. That every knee will bow and everyone will confess. And that people were saved out of Hades after Jesus' death. Then there are lots of logical arguments about God's forgiveness and mercy that @Irkle Berserkle and others discount. Jews and Catholics believe in certain types of post-mortem progression. Even JW's believe that after the resurrection, people will be given a 2nd chance during the Millennium. Are these fantasies? Maybe.

But I would rather consider these scenarios are expressions of true hope that the Wedding Feast will have as many people as possible.

 

[hedrick]

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 their translation of "Son of Man," not Jesus. They assume that Son of Man is a reference to Daniel, where there is a sequence of creatures. The final one is human. Son of man is a Hebrew way of saying human. Because a specific supernatural human is meant, they don't translate just as human, but as the Human One. It's a pretty good way of capturing what the phrase meant.

 

[public hermit]

I think most, being confronted by the reality of God, would accept forgiveness

Agreed. Part of what allows for the sin and evil we see in abundance is the brute fact the God, in a significant sense, is hidden. And, perhaps the reason for that is to prepare us for a more direct experience of the divine presence. I think the claim that all knees will bow and all confess hits on the notion the more direct the experience of the divine presence, the less able are we to reject true goodness.

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

I don't think we can state as a matter of doctrine all will be saved. I also think it was a mistake to insist many would be eternally damned. And, to be honest, I don't think that insistence was always in good faith. The church had a lot of power to gain in promoting the fear of eternal hell.

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

This is part of why I was suggesting that his position be interpreted through the work of Christ. Sin is destructive and contrary to the divine intention for love and life, so it is dealt with through the cross/resurrection. The question, as you've indicated, is how to interpret his teachings in light of his work. If the expectation of a sword wielding Messiah is now understood as a cross bearing Messiah, shouldn't that inform how we interpret other expectations like Gehenna?

And, again, isolating texts always blurs the less clear picture the canon gives lol. Why didn't Paul hammer more and more on eternal punishment? Why does the Gospel of John act like only believers live forever? There is a reason why there seems to be three basic positions, i.e. the scriptures.

 

[public hermit]

I see into the darkness even deeper than that. (ready for some REAL heresy?)

Can ALL creation be restored if even the demons and Satan himself is not redeemed? Every tongue and every knee...

I imagine Satan being the last one out. And what a COMPLETE victory that will be. Then EVERY enemy will be brought into line under the authority of Christ.

See, I'm even open to this possibility. What does it mean for God to be all in all, every enemy subjected? If they're still raising a fist, that's not victory.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

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.



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.



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.

But again, this seems to me to illustrate what I'm saying: It really doesn't matter what "some folks" (including me, of course) think or what "seems awfully not-good." The issue is, what has God communicated? Can we accept that we cannot remake Him in our preferred image?

You'll note that I referred to the "thrust" of the NT. I believe the thrust is clear and unequivocal. As with almost every significant doctrine, including the Trinity, there are verses that can be made to support a fringe position. But to hold that the Bible teaches something other than that large swaths of humanity will not be saved and will suffer an undesirable eternal fate requires way too many passages, including the very words of Jesus, to be ignored.

 

[public hermit]

requires way too many passages, including the very words of Jesus, to be ignored.

I don't know that they have to be ignored, but they have to be interpreted.

 

[Der Alte]

Lol. It's not surprising it's such a mess because, as you've said previously, Hell is a place from Norse mythology and so no 1st century Jew would even have heard about it, let alone believe in it.
So Hell doesn't appear in the Greek NT. Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus do instead but all three of these were translated as 'Hell' in English Bibles. So if you believe that the grave (Hades) is the same place as where the wicked are purified (Gehenna) and where evil angels are imprisoned (Tartarus) and that these are all the same as the Norse pagan Hell, it's not surprising that it led to the big mess that is ECT.
"That's another fine mess you've gotten me into."
Oliver Hardy.

Total irrelevant meaningless nonsense. You would know that if you read my post that cites Jewish sources which OBTW have never been refuted.
Here is what one of those sources says. You don't like it take it up with the writers.

[1]1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);[“Soon” in this paragraph would be about 700 BC +/-, DA]​

The Jews who compiled this encyclopedia ca. 1917 didn't have a problem equating "gehenna" with "hell" so your opinion is not relevant.

 

[Der Alte]

See, I'm even open to this possibility. What does it mean for God to be all in all, every enemy subjected? If they're still raising a fist, that's not victory.

Dead people are dead they can't be subjected to anything! Dead people are dead they can't raise anything not even their fists. There ain't no "nations", "peoples" etc, in the grave only individual dead bodies.
So what is the UR program, God raises all the wicked dead and using His God powers, and in the blink of an eye, transforms them all into God loving obedient servants? If something like that is going to happen why doesn't God change them in this life instead of sending them somewhere for punishment?

 

[public hermit]

Dead people are dead they can't be subjected to anything!

I thought dead people could be subjected to eternal torment. My apologies, if I didn't realize your position was annihilation.

So what is the UR program, God raises all the wicked dead and using His God powers, and in the blink of an eye, transforms them all into God loving obedient servants?

Would that be so bad? I would assume it would be more nuanced. Hell, or the experience of hell, could be remedial. No one gets off as if they weren't rotten. You either get baptised now by water, or later by fire, but it's all part of God being all in all. That's not a tragedy.

If something like that is going to happen why doesn't God change them in this life instead of sending them somewhere for punishment?

Don't stop there. Why would God create a world with this much evil? Why would God allow so much suffering now? I don't know. If God uses the experience of hell to heal, that should not be the biggest question, or even one that causes alarm. It would coincide with the basic biblical principle that sin and evil will not have the last word.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

I recall you saying you leaned towards Eastern Orthodoxy. Now when I joined CF, it had been a long time since I had explored or talked about universalism. When I read a thread about it here it rekindled my interest some. And along the way, someone who's also in this thread sent me a short video where an Eastern Orthodox clergyman gave a demonstration of the Orthodox view of salvation compared to the Protestant view. And I was floored by how close the Orthodox view came to universalism. As the person who sent me the video said, it brought it full circle. Also there's evidence that for the first four or five hundred years of the church, universalism was more of a majority view, and eternal conscious torment was more of a fringe view. Now that doesn't prove universalism, but it does show that unlike other views considered to be fringe, it actually started out as an original longstanding ancient orthodox view.

And here's the Eastern Orthodox view of Hell

This could be why two of the most prominent proponents of universalism, David Bentley Heart and Brad Jersak, are Eastern Orthodox.

FWIW, that's David Bentley Hart. Brad Jersak's ostensible Orthodoxy is eclectic at best, About Brad - Brad Jersak. To be honest, I've never even heard of Jersak and never seen either of them referenced in my pretty considerable studies.

To reemphasize: I'm not Orthodox, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night and thus can speak authoritatively.

The Orthodox position - the entire basis of the Church - is that theology must be derived from the Bible and the teachings of the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers. All who speak on theological matters are measured by this standard. The Church thus is very theologically conservative. There is also the notion of the unique Orthodox "phronema" (or mindset) that can never be fully grasped by one who is steeped in the Western way of approaching God.

As does little old me, the Church seems to recognize that even core doctrines retain an aspect of mystery. I would regard this discussion as more typical of an Orthodox view of Hell, although the authoritative dogmatic theologies in my library seem to set forth a more traditional view: Hell and God’s Love: An Orthodox View | Orthocath (wordpress.com).

To be clear: My position isn't that universalism is impossible, because then I'd be doing what I believe universalists are doing - insisting the transcendent eternal Creator must conform to my notions. My position is: What the eternal transcendent Creator has communicated to mankind is not universalism. I take confidence from the fact that this is what 99% or more of all Christians across history have believed and from the fact that the modern popularity of universalism is entirely consistent with what the Bible predicts for the End Times.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Final thought: I’m always puzzled by people who spend day after day on internet forums, accumulating tens or even hundreds of thousands of posts, in discussions of really sophisticated or technical subjects with little indication anyone really has a deep grasp of the subject. I’m talking in general, not casting aspersions at anyone here. But it does seem to be a truism. “Hey, what does everyone think about the Kalam cosmological argument?” Seldom if ever are there references to, or discussions of, what the best scholars in the field have written on the subject. We'd rather hear what some anonymous character who calls himself Fast Freddy or Burpo25 has to say.

So I’ll do what I always do: attempt to steer those who are sincerely interested in a subject such as this to easily accessible resources I’ve found worthwhile. I’ve never had any indication this produces results, but I persist.

• Richard Bauckham is Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews and a premier NT scholar. His book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony is a modern classic I highly recommend. This article, “Universalism: a historical survey” (Universalism: a historical survey - The Gospel Coalition), is short, readable and without theological bias. It's simply informative. Bauckham does make two points I made in my original post on this thread:
  
  Thus the modern universalist is no longer bound to the letter of the NT; he can base his doctrine on the spirit of NT teaching about the love of God. The same principle can even be extended to the teaching of the historical Jesus, though some have been able to persuade themselves that the Gospel texts about final judgment are not in any case authentic words of Jesus. This more liberal approach to Scripture has probably played quite a large part in the general spread of universalism in this century.
  
  I can - and did - put those same notions less charitably in my original contribution to this thread.
  
  
• I've found the numerous scholarly multi-view books – there must be at least 40 of them now – to be among the most valuable in my library. Typically, three or four recognized NT scholars explain their positions on an issue and each of the other scholars responds. This one, from the Countepoints series of such books, includes a universalist as one of the four scholars: Four Views on Hell: Second Edition (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) - Kindle edition by Zondervan, Sprinkle, Preston, Burk, Denny, Stackhouse, Jr., John G., Parry, Robin, Walls, Jerry. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

 

[public hermit]

Final thought: I’m always puzzled by people who spend day after day on internet forums, accumulating tens or even hundreds of thousands of posts, in discussions of really sophisticated or technical subjects with little indication anyone really has a deep grasp of the subject. I’m talking in general, not casting aspersions at anyone here. But it does seem to be a truism. “Hey, what does everyone think about the Kalam cosmological argument?” Seldom if ever are there references to, or discussions of, what the best scholars in the field have written on the subject. We'd rather hear what some anonymous character who calls himself Fast Freddy or Burpo25 has to say.

So I’ll do what I always do: attempt to steer those who are sincerely interested in a subject such as this to easily accessible resources I’ve found worthwhile. I’ve never had any indication this produces results, but I persist.

• Richard Bauckham is Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews and a premier NT scholar. His book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony is a modern classic I highly recommend. This article, “Universalism: a historical survey” (Universalism: a historical survey - The Gospel Coalition), is short, readable and without theological bias. It's simply informative. Bauckham does make two points I made in my original post on this thread:
  
  Thus the modern universalist is no longer bound to the letter of the NT; he can base his doctrine on the spirit of NT teaching about the love of God. The same principle can even be extended to the teaching of the historical Jesus, though some have been able to persuade themselves that the Gospel texts about final judgment are not in any case authentic words of Jesus. This more liberal approach to Scripture has probably played quite a large part in the general spread of universalism in this century.
  
  I can - and did - put those same notions less charitably in my original contribution to this thread.
  
  
• I've found the numerous scholarly multi-view books – there must be at least 40 of them now – to be among the most valuable in my library. Typically, three or four recognized NT scholars explain their positions on an issue and each of the other scholars responds. This one, from the Countepoints series of such books, includes a universalist as one of the four scholars: Four Views on Hell: Second Edition (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) - Kindle edition by Zondervan, Sprinkle, Preston, Burk, Denny, Stackhouse, Jr., John G., Parry, Robin, Walls, Jerry. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Here's a nice offering by Christian Philosopher, Keith DeRose, at Yale.

https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

 

[Der Alte]

I thought dead people could be subjected to eternal torment. My apologies, if I didn't realize your position was annihilation.

No not annihilation. Just pointing out the discrepancies in UR reasoning.
Okay lets look at UR correction/punishment. When God has decided that individuals have been correct/punished enough when does the change take place the rebellious, god hating, etc. people are suddenly transformed into God loving servants?

Would that be so bad? I would assume it would be more nuanced. Hell, or the experience of hell, could be remedial. No one gets off as if they weren't rotten. You either get baptised now by water, or later by fire, but it's all part of God being all in all. That's not a tragedy.

When and how does the change take place? Several years ago I was watching a travel program about Israel. Some American tourists were trying to get into one of the "holy" sites I think it was the "tomb of Jesus." A Muslim was blocking their way. The lady said "We only want to worship our God." The Muslim said "G*d d*mn your God to h*ll." When and how does that Muslim become a God lover?

Don't stop there. Why would God create a world with this much evil? Why would God allow so much suffering now? I don't know. If God uses the experience of hell to heal, that should not be the biggest question, or even one that causes alarm. It would coincide with the basic biblical principle that sin and evil will not have the last word.

Have you ever read Genesis? God did not create evil. Everything God created He said it was good.
Correction, punishment, healing no matter how you try to sugar coat it, it is going to be painful. Prison in this life, no burning flames, only rehabilitates about 40% of the prisoners. 60%+ return to prison. I'm still curious how/when the people being corrected/healed transform into God loving servants etc?

 

[Ceallaigh]

FWIW, that's David Bentley Hart. Brad Jersak's ostensible Orthodoxy is eclectic at best, About Brad - Brad Jersak. To be honest, I've never even heard of Jersak and never seen either of them referenced in my pretty considerable studies.

To reemphasize: I'm not Orthodox, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night and thus can speak authoritatively.

The Orthodox position - the entire basis of the Church - is that theology must be derived from the Bible and the teachings of the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers. All who speak on theological matters are measured by this standard. The Church thus is very theologically conservative. There is also the notion of the unique Orthodox "phronema" (or mindset) that can never be fully grasped by one who is steeped in the Western way of approaching God.

As does little old me, the Church seems to recognize that even core doctrines retain an aspect of mystery. I would regard this discussion as more typical of an Orthodox view of Hell, although the authoritative dogmatic theologies in my library seem to set forth a more traditional view: Hell and God’s Love: An Orthodox View | Orthocath (wordpress.com).

To be clear: My position isn't that universalism is impossible, because then I'd be doing what I believe universalists are doing - insisting the transcendent eternal Creator must conform to my notions. My position is: What the eternal transcendent Creator has communicated to mankind is not universalism. I take confidence from the fact that this is what 99% or more of all Christians across history have believed and from the fact that the modern popularity of universalism is entirely consistent with what the Bible predicts for the End Times.

Well like I said, it's not a latter day end times invention, it's ancient and apparently was a mainstream view for hundreds of years. Unlike most every fringe theology which sprung up in the 19th century. That's just a distinction I thought worth pointing out. Ironically a lot of end times theology (eschatology) is considerably newer than Apocatastasis (universalism).

As for Jersak's Orthodoxy, he was a protégé of and is still close friends with Archbishop Lazar Puhalo. So it seems a foregone conclusion he's in good standing with the EO church.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Final thought: I’m always puzzled by people who spend day after day on internet forums, accumulating tens or even hundreds of thousands of posts, in discussions of really sophisticated or technical subjects with little indication anyone really has a deep grasp of the subject. I’m talking in general, not casting aspersions at anyone here. But it does seem to be a truism. “Hey, what does everyone think about the Kalam cosmological argument?” Seldom if ever are there references to, or discussions of, what the best scholars in the field have written on the subject. We'd rather hear what some anonymous character who calls himself Fast Freddy or Burpo25 has to say.

So I’ll do what I always do: attempt to steer those who are sincerely interested in a subject such as this to easily accessible resources I’ve found worthwhile. I’ve never had any indication this produces results, but I persist.

• Richard Bauckham is Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews and a premier NT scholar. His book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony is a modern classic I highly recommend. This article, “Universalism: a historical survey” (Universalism: a historical survey - The Gospel Coalition), is short, readable and without theological bias. It's simply informative. Bauckham does make two points I made in my original post on this thread:
  
  Thus the modern universalist is no longer bound to the letter of the NT; he can base his doctrine on the spirit of NT teaching about the love of God. The same principle can even be extended to the teaching of the historical Jesus, though some have been able to persuade themselves that the Gospel texts about final judgment are not in any case authentic words of Jesus. This more liberal approach to Scripture has probably played quite a large part in the general spread of universalism in this century.
  
  I can - and did - put those same notions less charitably in my original contribution to this thread.
  
  
• I've found the numerous scholarly multi-view books – there must be at least 40 of them now – to be among the most valuable in my library. Typically, three or four recognized NT scholars explain their positions on an issue and each of the other scholars responds. This one, from the Countepoints series of such books, includes a universalist as one of the four scholars: Four Views on Hell: Second Edition (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) - Kindle edition by Zondervan, Sprinkle, Preston, Burk, Denny, Stackhouse, Jr., John G., Parry, Robin, Walls, Jerry. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

I think you'll find in time, if you stick around, that there are many here on CF who have a thorough knowledge of Christianity, scripture, theology and church history etc.

 

[hedrick]

• Thus the modern universalist is no longer bound to the letter of the NT; he can base his doctrine on the spirit of NT teaching about the love of God. The same principle can even be extended to the teaching of the historical Jesus, though some have been able to persuade themselves that the Gospel texts about final judgment are not in any case authentic words of Jesus. This more liberal approach to Scripture has probably played quite a large part in the general spread of universalism in this century.

That's how people have always dealt with Scripture. Jesus used this approach with the OT. Christians have always picked what they think is the overriding theme and fit other passages into it, even if a bit of force is needed for the fit. Traditionally it was done with allegorical interpretation. Now it's done by letting a few supposedly clear passages explain others that don't quite fit.

You have taken Jewish ideas of punishment and used them to interpret both Jesus and Paul. In fact it is useful to understand those Jewish ideas, since obviously some of Jesus' wording reflected them. For example, it lets us avoid the story you sometimes hear that Gehenna is just a garbage heap and not punishment in the afterlife. But that doesn't mean that Jesus' overall idea of how God is going to deal with sinners is the same as the Pharisees' ideas. After all, it was differences on that subject, more than anything else, that got him killed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you'll find in time, if you stick around, that there are many here on CF who have a thorough knowledge of Christianity, scripture, theology and church history etc.

There's also a number of folks who, magnetically charged as they are to their own dogmatic positions, seem to automatically assume that anyone else who may differ simply lives and breathes in some kind of epistemic ghetto, devoid of all rational thought or access to anything even remotely leaning toward "thorough knowledge."

And those so charged proceed to let the rest of us know that we "know nothing" and couldn't possibly be in any position to know otherwise.