Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hillsage]

My 4710 post seems to keep slipping through the CRACKS of Orthodoxy, totally unanswered or addressed by anyone, let alone the self proclaimed grand old master here, whom I originally addressed it to. So I'll post one more time. And this time I'll open my query up to all the supporters of HELL, as is taught my the majority church of today.


post #4710

As pertaining to the ‘topic of discussion’ what I find of importance is the fact that God thought pretty lowly of those who would torture their children with fire.

Lev 18:21 And you shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

FOR ME, I also see “seed” as meaning His Un-awakened spirit in every man. And I take “profaning His name” as accusing Him of being like Molech to His Seed.

Your life application thought, on this verse?

 

[Fervent]

That seems to be the nub of the problem. So gentiles are excluded. Seems Christendom's laboured in vain then.

Oh? Says who? Who said there weren't gentiles who were among the lost sheep of Israel? After all, Christ Himself stated "I have sheep that are not of this fold." But not everyone is a sheep of Christ's, that much we know since Christ noted that some were sons of their father the devil, and didn't hear His voice because tthey were not His sheep.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I did not call you or call anyone else "Son of Hell." But I apologize to you on behalf of the person who did.

Reminds me of the Easter service at my local Anglican church where they apologised for any Jews who might have been hurt consequent to the defiant imprecation of Matthew 27:25. I don't go to church for amusement value.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Oh? Says who? Who said there weren't gentiles who were among the lost sheep of Israel? After all, Christ Himself stated "I have sheep that are not of this fold." But not everyone is a sheep of Christ's, that much we know since Christ noted that some were sons of their father the devil, and didn't hear His voice because tthey were not His sheep.

Ah, so it's not a literal expression then. And the lost sheep out in the wilderness surely can't hear the shepherd's voice, that's why he leaves the flock to go retrieve it.

But look, let's just get to the point. There's overwhelming support for the claim that Jesus is SAVIOR OF THE WORLD:
What Does the Bible Say About Jesus Being The Savior Of The World?

I find it shocking that you'd want to dispute this article of faith.

 

[Fervent]

Ah, so it's not a literal expression then. And the lost sheep out in the wilderness surely can't hear the shepherd's voice, that's why he leaves the flock to go retrieve it.

But look, let's just get to the point. There's overwhelming support for the claim that Jesus is SAVIOR OF THE WORLD:
What Does the Bible Say About Jesus Being The Savior Of The World?

I find it shocking that you'd want to dispute this article of faith.

I haven't denied He is savior of the world, He provided atonement sufficient that should the whole world turn in repentance the whole world would be saved. What I don't see in the Bible is reason to suspect that the whole world will turn in repentance, nor that Jesus was under any delusion that such a thing would happen. Jesus came for His sheep alone, and we have clear places in Scripture where He denies that some people are among that number. So should I believe you, that all are actually His sheep or should I believe the Bible that there are some who will be told "depart, I never knew ye worker of iniquity?"

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I haven't denied He is savior of the world, He provided atonement sufficient that should the whole world turn in repentance the whole world would be saved. What I don't see in the Bible is reason to suspect that the whole world will turn in repentance, nor that Jesus was under any delusion that such a thing would happen. Jesus came for His sheep alone, and we have clear places in Scripture where He denies that some people are among that number. So should I believe you, that all are actually His sheep or should I believe the Bible that there are some who will be told "depart, I never knew ye worker of iniquity?"

Well, I understand 'Savior of the world' to mean, ultimately, just that. If Jesus says 'depart from me' (and to some who probably honestly and zealously believed they were his sheep), is that curtains for them, abandon all hope? So many folks just assume the worst, because they have a preconceived notion of eternal hell or irretrievable destruction. That's not the outcome of the works of a God of love and light, especially considering 90% or more of everyone ever would be doomed. We'd all be better off without that kind of vicious ultimatum.

Jesus saves, and he saves those who were already condemned to perishing in their sins through ignorance of the truth, (ie all in Adam). Mankind will be drawn to Christ by the need for trust, honour, love, truth, justice, freedom, virtue etc, which is the image of God in man. Sin and delusion can't overcome the soul's program to return to God, any more than you can prevent flames from licking towards heaven with bare hands.

 

[Fervent]

Well, I understand 'Savior of the world' to mean, ultimately, just that. If Jesus says 'depart from me' (and to some who probably honestly and zealously believed they were his sheep), is that curtains for them, abandon all hope? So many folks just assume the worst, because they have a preconceived notion of eternal hell or irretrievable destruction. That's not the outcome of the works of a God of love and light, especially considering 90% or more of everyone ever would be doomed. We'd all be better off without that kind of vicious ultimatum.

Jesus saves, and he saves those who were already condemned to perishing in their sins through ignorance of the truth, (ie all in Adam). Mankind will be drawn to Christ by the need for trust, honour, love, truth, justice, freedom, virtue etc, which is the image of God in man. Sin and delusion can't overcome the soul's program to return to God, any more than you can prevent flames from licking towards heaven with bare hands.

That's all well and good, but it seems based on nothing but a notion built in your own mind. Burned like stubble, better if they weren't born, eternal punishment, cast into the fire...yeah. Is your solution for Matthew 7 really just to ignore it and pretend Jesus doesn't tell them to depart(or that him telling them to depart "on that day"(that is at the final judgment) somehow means he's actually going to save them?), presumably to be cast into the fire? There's too much in the text, and directly out of the mouth of Jesus, to try to re-work it. Especially considering the most severe warnings come from Christ Himself, in stronger words than Jonathan Edwards could fathom.

 

[Servus]

Reversing the order from drawing doctrine from the text to using the text to prop up a doctrine that the bulk of it doesn't support and then complaining when people try to work out what the text itself is saying in the cherry picked verses. To prioritize maintaining a philosophical system over rendering the text and letting it speak for itself.

That sounds like the complaint against most doctrinal positions. Predestination, Free Will, Lordship Salvation, Free Grace, Baptism, Tongues etc.

 

[Fervent]

That sounds like the complaint against most doctrinal positions. Predestination, Free Will, Lordship Salvation, Free Grace, Baptism, Tongues etc.

It's not about doctrine, or at least not the specifics of the doctrine. Though it is true that generally the more sweeping a doctrine is the more likely it is to run into the issue. As far as UR specifically is concerned, the only way I can see to feasibly support it is to hang it as a distant hope such as Karl Barth's famous quote "Hell is eternal, but it is legitimate to hope that it's empty." And this is also where the historic universalists often landed, teaching publicly orthodox positions about the damnation of the wicked including the saints joy being increased by the torments upon the reprobate while privately expressing hope for an eschatology that saw every conscious being redeemed. UR is so far outside of the realm of Biblical exegesis that it has been formally anathematized by an ecumenical council and the most UR proponents can do regarding that charge is quibble with whether it was part of the main proceedings of the council or a legitimately authorized supplementary council. It is a direct offshoot of the liberalization of theology that has deemed the Bible itself suitable for criticism and it is clear that it primarily holds weight with those with a low view of Scripture who forward sophistry like "the Bible's not the word of God, Jesus is the word of God" and other attacks on the validity of Scripture that ultimately are nothing more than pernicious attacks on the faith by undermining the most secure repository of God's authority.

 

[Servus]

It's not about doctrine, or at least not the specifics of the doctrine. Though it is true that generally the more sweeping a doctrine is the more likely it is to run into the issue. As far as UR specifically is concerned, the only way I can see to feasibly support it is to hang it as a distant hope such as Karl Barth's famous quote "Hell is eternal, but it is legitimate to hope that it's empty." And this is also where the historic universalists often landed, teaching publicly orthodox positions about the damnation of the wicked including the saints joy being increased by the torments upon the reprobate while privately expressing hope for an eschatology that saw every conscious being redeemed. UR is so far outside of the realm of Biblical exegesis that it has been formally anathematized by an ecumenical council and the most UR proponents can do regarding that charge is quibble with whether it was part of the main proceedings of the council or a legitimately authorized supplementary council. It is a direct offshoot of the liberalization of theology that has deemed the Bible itself suitable for criticism and it is clear that it primarily holds weight with those with a low view of Scripture who forward sophistry like "the Bible's not the word of God, Jesus is the word of God" and other attacks on the validity of Scripture that ultimately are nothing more than pernicious attacks on the faith by undermining the most secure repository of God's authority.

Why did it take over 500 years for it to be formally anathematized? And wasn't it some specific aspect of Origen's teaching that was anathematized? Even universalists will speak against certain forms of universalism. I've heard that the kinds of universalists we see on CF don't like being called "universalists" because of that.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That's all well and good, but it seems based on nothing but a notion built in your own mind.

Sure, have it your own way. If that's the case I'll be going to hell out of compassion for the damned, if nothing else.

Burned like stubble, better if they weren't born, eternal punishment, cast into the fire...yeah.

All of those scriptures are ambiguous at best (when taken out of context), and if interpreted harmoniously with the foundational principles of grace and God's universal covenant promises, must be read in other ways, which can readily be done.

Is your solution for Matthew 7 really just to ignore it and pretend Jesus doesn't tell them to depart(or that him telling them to depart "on that day"(that is at the final judgment) somehow means he's actually going to save them?), presumably to be cast into the fire?

They are sent to be cleansed of their sins and errors. Not that they'd realise at the time, because they've been busy besmirching God's character as some kind of psychopathic killer.

There's too much in the text, and directly out of the mouth of Jesus, to try to re-work it.

No, many just have a fixated and legalistic mindset which prevents them from experiencing the beauty and perfection of God's plan. How can a person say they believe in God's salvation when they really believe that the overwhelming majority are doomed?

Especially considering the most severe warnings come from Christ Himself, in stronger words than Jonathan Edwards could fathom.

Jesus is always coming from love. Even his harsh rebukes to the Pharisees are an effort to penetrate the arrogance which blinds them so they might turn to the kingdom. Of course there are no Pharisees anymore, no Christian is so blinded by self-righteous hypocritical dualism.

 

[Fervent]

Why did it take over 500 years for it to be formally anathematized? And wasn't it some specific aspect of Origen's teaching that was anathematized? Even universalists will speak against certain forms of universalism. I've heard that the kinds of universalists we see on CF don't like being called "universalists" because of that.

The anathema's against Origen are a bit complicated since the works that were anathematized were most likely actually forged documents from 150 years after he taught(and he is often maligned unjustly because of). The issue is that most modern universalist positions don't line up with the historic threads that they try to claim a heritage of. Origen came the closest to modern positions and is likely the most difficult(possibly impossible) to find teaching on the fate of the wicked, but others commonly claimed to be universalists like Gregory of Nyssa and Clement of Alexandria each in places taught both on the eternality(though Gregory of Nyssa did make explicit a conditional to the eternal nature) and punitive aspects of hell. There certainly are ways to express a universalist position that do not cross over into the anathematized territory, but the biggest reason for universalism not being condemned during Origen and Gregory of Nyssa's lifetimes is because they didn't teach it but in the case of Origen a splinter group took his name to write universalist tomes 150 years after his death, and it wasn't until the time of Justinian that there was much kindling for the view. Here's an excerpt by an Orthodox metropolitan who is a specialist on Patristics explanation of Gregory of Nyssa's orthodoxy on the topic of hell extending into infinity:
St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Teaching On The Eternal Nature Of Hell

 

[Fervent]

Sure, have it your own way. If that's the case I'll be going to hell out of compassion for the damned, if nothing else.

That's some hubris. Christ died for three days, but Shrewd Manager's going to hell for eternity.

All of those scriptures are ambiguous at best (when taken out of context), and if interpreted harmoniously with the foundational principles of grace and God's universal covenant promises, must be read in other ways, which can readily be done.

They seem pretty clear, and direct, to me. "Interpreted harmoniously" is a nice way of putting eisegetically, though.

They are sent to be cleansed of their sins and errors. Not that they'd realise at the time, because they've been busy besmirching God's character as some kind of psychopathic killer.

I see no where in the text any reason to believe it is temporary, and several reasons to suspect its terminal. But you go on "hamonizing" the text with the god-character you've imagined.

No, many just have a fixated and legalistic mindset which prevents them from experiencing the beauty and perfection of God's plan. How can a person say they believe in God's salvation when they really believe that the overwhelming majority are doomed?

Legalism? No, it's simply a matter of asking "What does the text say?" rather than "How can I make this text fit what I want to believe?"

Jesus is always coming from love. Even his harsh rebukes to the Pharisees are an effort to penetrate the arrogance which blinds them so they might turn to the kingdom. Of course there are no Pharisees anymore, no Christian is so blinded by self-righteous hypocritical dualism.

Rabbinical Jews would be surprised to hear you say there are no pharisee's anymore, since that's pretty much all of modern Judaism. But of course, Jesus was just teasing when he told them they weren't his sheep and said "all who come before me are thieves and robbers." Guess His whole "I am the door" thing wasn't true and he meant to say "There is no door." Wide is the path? Nah, it's all just ambiguous and needs to be specially interpreted and "harmonized."

 

[Servus]

The anathema's against Origen are a bit complicated since the works that were anathematized were most likely actually forged documents from 150 years after he taught(and he is often maligned unjustly because of). The issue is that most modern universalist positions don't line up with the historic threads that they try to claim a heritage of. Origen came the closest to modern positions and is likely the most difficult(possibly impossible) to find teaching on the fate of the wicked, but others commonly claimed to be universalists like Gregory of Nyssa and Clement of Alexandria each in places taught both on the eternality(though Gregory of Nyssa did make explicit a conditional to the eternal nature) and punitive aspects of hell. There certainly are ways to express a universalist position that do not cross over into the anathematized territory, but the biggest reason for universalism not being condemned during Origen and Gregory of Nyssa's lifetimes is because they didn't teach it but in the case of Origen a splinter group took his name to write universalist tomes 150 years after his death, and it wasn't until the time of Justinian that there was much kindling for the view. Here's an excerpt by an Orthodox metropolitan who is a specialist on Patristics explanation of Gregory of Nyssa's orthodoxy on the topic of hell extending into infinity:
St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Teaching On The Eternal Nature Of Hell

I've heard from more than one source that universalism (at least of a sort) was an accepted and even predominate view for about the first 500 years. While there's a paper by a metropolitan who is a specialist on Patristics, there's also papers and books by another specialist on Patristics named Brad Jersak who's a protégé of Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, who's probably even more of an expert on Patristics. Of course that doesn't mean the metropolitan is wrong. But it does mean there are other qualified views. Which is why I don't write it off altogether. It seems to me most anything involving eschatology is a matter of prognostication. I remember when I was younger I was talking about all the last days views, such as the pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib therories. And the person I was speaking to said, "how about the pan theory?". That being, it will all pan out in the end.

 

[Servus]

That's all well and good, but it seems based on nothing but a notion built in your own mind. Burned like stubble, better if they weren't born, eternal punishment, cast into the fire...yeah. Is your solution for Matthew 7 really just to ignore it and pretend Jesus doesn't tell them to depart(or that him telling them to depart "on that day"(that is at the final judgment) somehow means he's actually going to save them?), presumably to be cast into the fire? There's too much in the text, and directly out of the mouth of Jesus, to try to re-work it. Especially considering the most severe warnings come from Christ Himself, in stronger words than Jonathan Edwards could fathom.

Matthew 7, especially Matthew 7:23, seems to be used as conclusive proof of eternal damnation a lot. But personally I don't see how it supports eternal damnation. It seems more like it's been decided that's what it's about. Jesus saying "away from me, you evildoers!" causes me to think about Jesus saying "get thee behind me Satan" to Peter. I'm sure you can go into great detail about why I can't make that comparison, but it came to mind nevertheless. Personally I can't think of anything that Jesus said, which compares to what Jonathan Edwards came up with. It seems from what I've seen presented, Matthew 25:41 and 46 are the strongest verses to support eternal damnation, but the problem I personally have with that, as I've pointed out before, is it's part of a parable, that if taken literally at face value, actually seems to go against the gospel, in that one gets into the Kingdom by way of good deeds. So it's things like that that make me wonder about what's what.

 

[Fervent]

I've heard from more than one source that universalism (at least of a sort) was an accepted and even predominate view for about the first 500 years. While there's a paper by a metropolitan who is a specialist on Patristics, there's also papers and books by another specialist on Patristics named Brad Jersak who's a protégé of Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, who's probably even more of an expert on Patristics. Of course that doesn't mean the metropolitan is wrong. But it does mean there are other qualified views. Which is why I don't write it off altogether. It seems to me most anything involving eschatology is a matter of prognostication. I remember when I was younger I was talking about all the last days views, such as the pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib therories. And the person I was speaking to said, "how about the pan theory?". That being, it will all pan out in the end.

Right...this is exactly why appealing to "scholars" is such a misleading practice...find a position, and there's a "scholar" to hide behind. Are you qualified to evaluate expert credentials? And your post right here is little more than throwing smoke. You have no idea how Brad Jersak or Lazar Puhalo got their accolades, you certainly don't have the familiarity with the patristics to evaluate whether they are legitimately experts or if they've simply worked the system to get some fancy credentials. Apokatastasis, which is often mislabeled as "universalism" was certainly a speculation among the Alexandrian school of theology but no one who engaged in the speculation denied the existence of hell, and with the exception of Origen all explicitly affirmed it(though Gregory of Nyssa's most explicit statements are formulated as conditionals) in their writings. The article by Hierotheus wasn't about his being an expert, but his explanation of Gregory of Nyssa's writings on Baptism which he quotes from to show that the supposed historic basis is often oversold by polemic writers since the only writer who moderns seem to nearly universally believe was a universalist that wasn't anathematized for his universalism upheld the notion of an eternal hell in his writings.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That's some hubris. Christ died for three days, but Shrewd Manager's going to hell for eternity.

Does it take hubris to go to hell for eternity now? Actually, with the kind of god you describe, I'd be better off in hell. I mean that.

They seem pretty clear, and direct, to me. "Interpreted harmoniously" is a nice way of putting eisegetically, though.

So God's sworn oath that He'll save 'all the ends of the earth' is somehow consistent with 99% of people being condemned to hell. Whatever.

Legalism? No, it's simply a matter of asking "What does the text say?" rather than "How can I make this text fit what I want to believe?"

The text says God will be all in all, pour out His Spirit on all flesh, Jesus is saviour of the world, all the nations will be saved and healed. But you desire the god who saves you and tortures everyone else, right?

I am the door" thing wasn't true and he meant to say "There is no door." Wide is the path? Nah, it's all just ambiguous and needs to be specially interpreted and "harmonized."

If you're still misrepresenting UR after being on this thread forever, I can only conclude you either have a comprehension problem or you're trolling. All come to God through Christ. Get it? Here's a little picture for you, it might help (I can only hope):

ALL ----> JESUS -----> GOD.

See how that works?

Pharisees are not just historical and rabbinical figures. The HS is trying to teach us something about ourselves. Let's pray for Jesus to open the eyes of our hearts, shall we?

 

[Fervent]

Matthew 7, especially Matthew 7:23, seems to be used as conclusive proof of eternal damnation a lot. But personally I don't see how it supports eternal damnation. It seems more like it's been decided that's what it's about. Jesus saying "away from me, you evildoers!" causes me to think about Jesus saying "get thee behind me Satan" to Peter. I'm sure you can go into great detail about why I can't make that comparison, but it came to mind nevertheless. Personally I can't think of anything that Jesus said, which compares to what Jonathan Edwards came up with. It seems from what I've seen presented, Matthew 25:41 and 46 are the strongest verses to support eternal damnation, but the problem I personally have with that, as I've pointed out before, is it's part of a parable, that if taken literally at face value, actually seems goes against the gospel, in that one gets into the Kingdom by way of good deeds. So it's things like that that make me wonder about what's what.

While it is ambiguos about where the workers of lawlessness are to depart, the verse is a pretty strong statement against universalism since Jesus makes explicit reference to "that day," which is the day of God's vengeance, and expresses a final judgment. Whether that means they depart to annhilation, or eternal torment is rather immaterial when the question at hand is universalism.

 

[Fervent]

Does it take hubris to go to hell for eternity now? Actually, with the kind of god you describe, I'd be better off in hell. I mean that.

So God's sworn oath that He'll save 'all the ends of the earth' is somehow consistent with 99% of people being condemned to hell. Whatever.

There's no sworn oath there, but a conditional statement: Turn to me, and be saved. Those who turn, are saved. Those who don't are damned. But claiming a conditional statement is a sworn oath shows the duplicitous manner you handle Scripture.

The text says God will be all in all, pour out His Spirit on all flesh, Jesus is saviour of the world, all the nations will be saved and healed. But you desire the god who saves you and tortures everyone else, right?

All of which require context to properly understand, such as the reference from Joel where the statement is explicitly limited to Israel both before and after. All this is is cherry picking quotes without context to make the Bible say something that it doesn't actually say when the verse is read in its whole context.

If you're still misrepresenting UR after being on this thread forever, I can only conclude you either have a comprehension problem or you're trolling. All come to God through Christ. Get it? Here's a little picture for you, it might help (I can only hope):

ALL ----> JESUS -----> GOD.

See how that works?

Not twisting myself in pretzel-logic to avoid a consequent is not the same thing as "misrepresenting." I'm aware that universalists pay lip-service to Christian verbiage, but can easily be referred to as "these people honor me with their lips..."

Pharisees are not just historical and rabbinical figures. The HS is trying to teach us something about ourselves. Let's pray for Jesus to open the eyes of our hearts, shall we?

Now there's some weasel speak.

 

[Servus]

Right...this is exactly why appealing to "scholars" is such a misleading practice...find a position, and there's a "scholar" to hide behind. Are you qualified to evaluate expert credentials? And your post right here is little more than throwing smoke. You have no idea how Brad Jersak or Lazar Puhalo got their accolades, you certainly don't have the familiarity with the patristics to evaluate whether they are legitimately experts or if they've simply worked the system to get some fancy credentials. Apokatastasis, which is often mislabeled as "universalism" was certainly a speculation among the Alexandrian school of theology but no one who engaged in the speculation denied the existence of hell, and with the exception of Origen all explicitly affirmed it(though Gregory of Nyssa's most explicit statements are formulated as conditionals) in their writings. The article by Hierotheus wasn't about his being an expert, but his explanation of Gregory of Nyssa's writings on Baptism which he quotes from to show that the supposed historic basis is often oversold by polemic writers since the only writer who moderns seem to nearly universally believe was a universalist that wasn't anathematized for his universalism upheld the notion of an eternal hell in his writings.

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking into account what various scholars have to say. I think the mistake is propping up a scholar or expert as being infallible and the final word on something. I'm sorry that you see my post as "throwing smoke". I'm just casually discussing a subject from my pov. It might help if you keep in mind that I say I don't know for sure about much. Like anyone else I have to explore and reason things out, and I acknowledge that I could easily be wrong. While it's possible that Brad Jersak and Archbishop Lazar worked the system to get their accolades and fancy credentials, I haven't come across any reason to suspect such. From what I've read apokatastasis/universalism was taught in the Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa schools of theology. Again, this isn't me trying to prove anything, I just personally think it's worth taking into consideration.