Why hasn't Christian universalism ever gone away?

[zippy2006]

If you can post some relevant extracts, I'd be happy to read their views. Or just give a summary of the main points if that's easier.

In the meantime, here's something concrete for you to read: Fr Aiden Kimel on the subject of whether universalism is a heresy or not,

"Over the past three centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Justinian does not mention the Origenist debate in his letter announcing the council nor in his letter that was read to the bishops at the formal opening of the council; nor do the acts of the council, as preserved in the Latin translation (the original Greek text having been lost), cite the fifteen anathemas. Hence when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation: “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.”"

I have read Kimel, even when he was Anglican and Catholic. He follows Hart and is not respected even in his own communion.

I have not researched their claims about II Constantinople, mostly because the people arguing for Universalism don't really care what Ecumenical Councils have or have not said. If it was proved beyond a doubt that Constantinople II did condemn the relevant view of Universalism, I do not believe the positions of people like yourself would change. So it's a moot point.

 

[atpollard]

I think that heresies never completely die, because there really is a devil.

 

[Hmm]

I do not believe the positions of people like yourself would change.

Clearly people like yourself know people like myself better than we know ourselves.

I asked you for a simple explanation of the theory you were recommending and you haven't even attempted to do so I take it that you aren't able to. You have to understand something very well to be able to describe it in simple language as any teacher will tell you.

Your ad hom against Kimel is odd because firstly because I doubt you are in any position to know how Kimel is regarded by the academic community and, secondly, he wasn't giving his own views anyway but those of Norman P. Tanner, the editor of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.

So I can't find anything at all in your post that I can respond to but I guess there's some skill in that.

 

[zippy2006]

Clearly people like yourself know people like myself better than we know ourselves.

Do you personally adhere to the pronouncements of ecumenical councils such as II Constantinople, or do you not?

I asked you for a simple explanation of the theory you were recommending and you haven't even attempted to do so I take it that you aren't able to.

I gave you a timestamped link which you are apparently not capable of viewing. Beyond that, you don't even understand the point I was making. You seem to think I was offering some sort of alternative theory to Universalism.

Your ad hom against Kimel really means nothing because I doubt you are in any position to know how Kimel is regarded by the academic community.

I spoke about his communion, not the academic community, and you are welcome to go visit the Orthodox on CF and ask them their thoughts. You will find I am correct.

As far as the academic community, Kimel is obviously not respected there but this is to be expected since he is an amateur theologian and a blogger, as he would tell you himself. If you actually cited your sources the people reading this thread would know that you were quoting from a blog rather than an academic work.

 

[Hmm]

I spoke about his communion, not the academic community, and you are welcome to go visit the Orthodox on CF and ask them their thoughts. You will find I am correct.

As far as the academic community, Kimel is obviously not respected there but this is to be expected since he is an amateur theologian and a blogger, as he would tell you himself. If you actually cited your sources the people reading this thread would know that you were quoting from a blog rather than an academic work.

I just edited my last post to point out that Kimel wasn't expressing his own views anyway but rather those of the church historian Norman P. Tanner, the editor of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, and so your ad hom on Kimel is inappropriate.

I gave you a timestamped link which you are apparently not capable of viewing. Beyond that, you don't even understand the point I was making. You seem to think I was offering some sort of alternative theory to Universalism.

I asked you to explain your point but you seem unable to do so. I'll consider watching the YouTube video if you first give me some idea of what it's about.

I spoke about his communion, not the academic community, and you are welcome to go visit the Orthodox on CF and ask them their thoughts. You will find I am correct.

As far as the academic community, Kimel is obviously not respected there but this is to be expected since he is an amateur theologian and a blogger, as he would tell you himself. If you actually cited your sources the people reading this thread would know that you were quoting from a blog rather than an academic work.

I'm confused. You are saying that Kimel is not an academic and yet is not respected within the academic community. Does academia usually form a consensus view on amateurs and bloggers?

Do you have anything at all to say about the actual topic of the thread?

 

[zippy2006]

I just edited my last post to point out that Kimel wasn't expressing his own views anyway but rather those of the church historian Norman P. Tanner, the editor of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, and so your ad hom on Kimel is off-track.

Then you yourself do not understand what Kimel is saying, and seem to be engaging in gish gallop. I would recommend reading your "sources" more carefully.

Kimel is using Tanner's exclusion to support his own view that the anathemas were not part of II Constantinople. He quotes Tanner to support his own argument with a recognized authority.

I'm confused. You are saying that Kimel is not an academic and yet is not respected within the academic community. Does academia usually form a consensus view on amateurs and bloggers?

You are not an academic and you are not respected in the academic community. Mickey Mouse is not an academic and Mickey Mouse is not respected in the academic community. Neither Kimel or Mickey Mouse are, to my knowledge, disrespected in the academic community. Still, they are not respected there. In any case, you are the one who brought up the whole idea of "the academic community" (when you misread my own post about Kimel lacking respect in his own communion).

 

[Hmm]

Then you yourself do not understand what Kimel is saying, and seem to be engaging in gish gallop. I would recommend reading your "sources" more carefully.

Kimel is using Tanner's exclusion to support his own view that the anathemas were not part of II Constantinople. He quotes Tanner to support his own argument with a recognized authority.



You are not an academic and you are not respected in the academic community. Mickey Mouse is not an academic and Mickey Mouse is not respected in the academic community.

I explicitly said that I am not an academic in the OP. How about you?

I'm bored with your ad homs so I won't bother responding to the rest of your post.

 

[Tigger45]

None of the heresies go away.

Bingo!
Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[zippy2006]

Then you yourself do not understand what Kimel is saying, and seem to be engaging in gish gallop. I would recommend reading your "sources" more carefully.

Kimel is using Tanner's exclusion to support his own view that the anathemas were not part of II Constantinople. He quotes Tanner to support his own argument with a recognized authority.

Universalists generally wield sources and arguments in an ad hoc way, as things which are not examined with any rigor but are merely used as props to support preconceived opinions. I have <spoken about this phenomenon before>. A prime example was the thread on "Marilyn McCord Adams and the Problem of Hell." There the OP claimed that Adams' argument proved Universalism, but he continually refused to defend that argument. It is unlikely that he had even read her paper. A similar thing occurs here, when Hmm fails to grasp the way that Kimel is leveraging a quote from Tanner in an excerpt from Kimel that is purported to support Universalism.

Recently I was skimming David Bentley Hart's book on Universalism, and there we find more or less the same phenomenon occurring. Hart's merit is that he admits that his argument is primarily emotional and unpersuasive. Jordan Cooper's review is accurate:

 

[Rajni]

While the universalist genealogies can be traced, what he finds the most interesting feature is just how many people have stumbled onto it for themselves without it having been passed on to them.

Count me in as one of those folks; I wasn't even thinking about it when a verse jumped out at me pointing me in that direction.

I would like to emphasize that I came to the realization without anyone debating it to death with me. That little tidbit might save everyone a lot of time.


-

 

[Der Alte]

Why hasn't Christian universalism ever gone away?

The ultimate answer is because there are so many people around pushing universal reconciliation, telling the world, "You don't have to worry, you can live like the devil, your entire life, and you will be saved anyway."

 

[Hmm]

Count me in as one of those folks; I wasn't even thinking about it when a verse jumped out at me pointing me in that direction.

I would like to emphasize that I came to the realization without anyone debating it to death with me. That little tidbit might save everyone a lot of time.


-

Lol! I'm not interested in debating universalism either but I often learn something from these universalist threads, at the very least how blessed I am not to be caught up in the ECT web when I see the effect that has on people. There but for the grace of God go I.

I find it nice to do something, however small, to help disseminate the idea too because universalism has given me a lot of spiritual peace and happiness

 

[Hmm]

I guess this goes some way to explain why universalism is still around today. Even in Norway, the home of "hel", there's little belief in it. In fact it's very low in all the Scandinavian countries including Denmark and Iceland.

 

[zippy2006]

I guess this goes some way to explain why universalism is still around today. Even in Norway, the home of "hel", there's little belief in it. In fact it's very low in all the Scandinavian countries including Denmark and Iceland...

This is another misleading Universalist trope, since the percentages for "Belief in Heaven" would be very similar to these percentages for "Belief in Hell."

This is a form of statistical self-deception, but even if Europe was strongly Christian and strongly Universalist, the reason why would be described by post #13, and would have little to do with any form of normative exegesis.

Modern "religious" universalism is nothing more than an acute exercise in post-hoc rationalization.

 

[Lazarus Short]

The ultimate answer is because there are so many people around pushing universal reconciliation, telling the world, "You don't have to worry, you can live like the devil, your entire life, and you will be saved anyway."

You know better.

 

[Der Alte]

You know better.

If it walks like a duck...

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

False theology exists, because men are truth suppressors Rom1:16-21

 

[Lazarus Short]

If it walks like a duck...

...sometimes, it's a goose.

 

[Hmm]

...sometimes, it's a goose.

That's a fowl joke.

 

[Der Alte]

That's a fowl joke.

No! It was in bounds.