Why hasn't Christian universalism ever gone away?

[Muckah]

[

 

[Der Alte]

There may be more truth to universalism than we think. I have difficulty believing that someone who has never heard the gospel would be condemned. Or somebody who was born in another religion who may have heard of Christ and Christianity but remained in Hinduism - for example - would be condemned. Especially when the two most murderous world religions are Islam and Christianity, and Hinduism is the most peaceful religion on earth.
Sometimes the guru's make more sense that a lot of the well known preachers in Christianity. Too many preachers are negativity preachers. They never anything good to say about anyone or any thing.

The Bible has that covered.
Romans 4:15
(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

This would include small children, infants, the mentally handicapped etc.

 

[Servus]

satan has, does and will continue to distort the Word of God .... all will be given over to their beliefs and judged accordingly.

2 Thessalonians 2

10and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. 11 For this reason God will send them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie, 12in order that judgment may come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.…

Are you saying that applies to Christians who believe in universalism?

 

[Servus]

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."

Wouldn't that be an interesting test of whether one really loves the Lord or not? That sure one can live like the devil and still be saved, yet one chooses to seek godliness anyways. What does it say about the Christian and Christianity, if the only reason for not living like the devil, is to avoid going to hell?

 

[Servus]

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:

That's a surprising and disappointing review coming from Cooper, whom I have a lot of respect for. Not what I would have expected from Hart.

 

[Hmm]

That's a surprising and disappointing review coming from Cooper, whom I have a lot of respect for. Not what I would have expected from Hart.

I very much doubt Hart said any such thing.

Perhaps the poster making the claim could support it with a citation from a reputable source?If he does, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong.

I won't be holding my breath though because of the previous unsubstantiated ad hominems against Kimel that this individual previously posted on this thread.

It would be more interesting if he could address what they actually say and present an argument against it if he disagrees rather than the ad homs but, again, something tells me not to hold my breath

 

[Servus]

I very much doubt Hart said any such thing.

Perhaps the poster making the claim could support it with a citation from a reputable source?If he does, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong.

I won't be holding my breath though because of the previous unsubstantiated ad homs against Kimel that this individual previously posted on this thread.

I wasn't talking about the poster. I was talking about Jordan Cooper's review of DBH's book. Cooper is one of my goto theologians, so his review carries weight for me. Not that I think Cooper debunked Hart, but I'm not happy with Hart's approach the way Cooper describes it.

 

[Hmm]

I wasn't talking about the poster. I was talking about Jordan Cooper's review of DBH's book. Cooper is one of my goto theologians, so his review carries weight for me. Not that I think Cooper debunked Hart, but I'm not happy with Hart's approach the way Cooper describes it.

Okay, sorry I never watch YouTube videos unless the poster summarises it so I assumed it was just another ad hom.

 

[Rajni]

Wouldn't that be an interesting test of whether one really loves the Lord or not? That sure one can live like the devil and still be saved, yet one chooses to seek godliness anyways. What does it say about the Christian and Christianity, if the only reason for not living like the devil, is to avoid going to hell?

What's kind of wild is that the "I can do what I want because I'm saved anyway" objection is the exact same one I used to hear when I converted from works-based Catholicism to born-again evangelical Christianity (and this was with the belief in hell still intact).

The idea that you could know you were saved was just as controversial to the Catholics around me as universal salvation is to the non-works-based – even OSAS – segments of Christianity. My Catholic upbringing had taught me that "knowing" you were saved was considered “presumption” and frowned upon. I even remember objecting to it as a Catholic myself, when my Baptist room-mate tried to share with me the gospel of salvation and trusting Jesus to be saved. (I later was thrilled to tell her I had gotten saved, and she was glad to hear it!)

My bible-church pastor at the time even responded to such objections with the admittedly bold assurance that if you think you can do whatever you want as a Christian and still be saved, then you understand salvation. Technically, a Christian could do whatever they want and still go to heaven when they die, because faith is what saves them and not works/good behavior. But while all things might be permitted, not all are advantageous. You may not go to hell eating a whole truckload of Twinkies in one sitting, but, by golly, you’re gonna be feeling like hell afterwards. No one is exempt from hell-ish experiences, after all; it's part of the ride.

Generally, though, the realization of guaranteed salvation would generate good works automatically because the pressure is off, making the fruit of the Spirit flow more easily I guess you could say. At least, that’s the effect it had on me. It was easier to love and praise God when I didn’t have to worry about being doomed over some technicality (and technicalities vary depending on which of the thousands of denominations you have the pleasure of knowing on any given day). From a psychological perspective, one could say it was reverse-psychology; knowing I could really do whatever I wanted and still be saved just made me want to live rightly out of gratitude and love of the Lord, rather than fear of punishment. Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment, something along those lines. Plus, over time, I have found that plain old empathy becomes a huge influence in how I treat other people, no threats of eternal doom required.

 

[Hmm]

What's kind of wild is that the "I can do what I want because I'm saved anyway" objection is the exact same one I used to hear when I converted from works-based Catholicism to born-again evangelical Christianity (and this was with the belief in hell still intact

Indeed, and you can posit a counterpoint - if you're only living how you think a Christian ought to live in order to make sure you're saved and avoid eternal torment, your primary motivation is saving yourself. What kind of puny God would reward such selfishness?

 

[Rajni]

Indeed, and you can posit a counterpoint - if you're only living how you think a Christian ought to live in order to make sure you're saved and avoid eternal torment, your primary motivation is saving yourself. What kind of puny God would reward such selfishness?

There's a Sufi mystic, by the name of Rabia al Basri, to whom the following, very brave, sentiment is attributed:

"If I adore You out of fear of Hell, burn me in Hell!
If I adore you out of desire for Paradise,
Lock me out of Paradise.
But if I adore you for Yourself alone,
Do not deny to me Your eternal beauty.”

That is a noble goal I hope to achieve, and so far she's the only one I've seen express it.

I am at the point where if God does put me in hell, I would hope to just love Him from there as well. As it is, I could probably use some "Baptism by Fire."

 

[Hmm]

There's a Sufi mystic, by the name of Rabia al Basri, to whom the following, very brave, sentiment is attributed:

"If I adore You out of fear of Hell, burn me in Hell!
If I adore you out of desire for Paradise,
Lock me out of Paradise.
But if I adore you for Yourself alone,
Do not deny to me Your eternal beauty.”

That is a noble goal I hope to achieve, and so far she's the only one I've seen express it.

I am at the point where if God does put me in hell, I would hope to just love Him from there as well. As it is, I could probably use some "Baptism by Fire."

Like anyone, God wants us to love him for Himself, not for anything we get out of it. I remember a book by the late Desmond Tutu and he was talking about the common experience of feeling God's love and peace quite intensely when you first find Christ and how this feeling usually doesn't last very long. He said this initial feeling of closeness has a word:"consolation" and it's used by God to attract people at first, just as we may give sweets to children. But after a while He withdraws it because He wants people to love Him for Himself, not for any reward, even if that reward is what we would think of as somtehing that's inherently morally good one such as feelings of love and peace.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I listened to an interesting talk by Robin Parry on the history of universalism that I'd like to try to summarise. The talk's here:

He focuses on the post-Reformation period and says how amazing it is that universalism seems to have been repeatedly rediscovered over this time. 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. He gives various reasons for this: some people have personal religious experiences that lead them to universalism; others, simply by reflecting on the Bible, come to believe that it teaches universalism and others find that struggling with the concept of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) draws them to the larger hope of universal restoration.

Why is this? Parry believes that part of the answer to this is in the feeling that universalism is a better fit within Christian theology than the alternatives of annihilation or ECT, at least at face value. And as such, there is an internal pressure generated by these doctrines that push in universalist directions. The doctrine of hell is a blocker on that push merely serves to generate a build-up of pressure from unresolved questions that sometimes need to be released. And one of the ways that this can be released is by pushing out the doctrine of ECT, "like a cork from champagne", and embracing universalism.

The idea that we have a God-shaped hole in us is pretty well known. Parry says that Infernalists want us to similarly believe that there is a hell-shaped hole in Christian theology but that this doesn't work quite as well. There is clearly a space for judgment and punishment and so while the hell-shaped hole is not completely out of place, yet something is wrong with it which causes the sense of unease that so many people feel about the idea. That this is the case is indicated not merely by the fact that some people throw the whole idea away but also by the extraordinary lengths those who believe in it go to defend it.

Parry talks about how the salvation story the church tells seems to generate, by its own logic, certain expectations about the end of the story. So while we may well expect that the journey towards the end will involve judgment and punishment, the narrative logic does not lead us to expect it to end in eternal torture for some/many/most of us. He uses a musical analogy to say that that's like a discordant note at the end of a Mozart symphony. We instinctively feel that it doesn’t fit, and indeed that it is rather immoral.

The universalist proposal is that it in fact does not fit, that there is no place in the story for eternal torture. He expounds on how the Bible does not actually teach such a doctrine, that most in the early church never accepted such a doctrine; and that we’d be better off discarding it completely.

He's also worried that by retaining the notion of ECT we do immense damage to the rest of the biblical story. He likens it to trying to force a piece of a puzzle into a gap it doesn't fit and squashing the surrounding pieces. The end result is a distorted picture.

To try to relieve the pressure caused by trying to force this misshapen piece into the jigsaw, we may reconfigure other parts of our theology and say that perhaps God did not create everyone for union with Himself, and perhaps some were created for damnation like the Clavanist Reprobates. Perhaps Jesus doesn't represent humanity but only a subset of it. Perhaps he died only for a few of us and not for all. These ideas do serve to relieve some of the pressure caused by ECT, but they do so at an obviously high cost.

So the main point here in terms of the question of the thread is that universalism has never gone away because it is the most effective antidote to the distortion and stresses caused by the introduction of the foreign body of ECT into the biblical narrative because it rejects it completely. And that people instinctively know that ECT doesn't fit in with the picture of Jesus and so, although they don't in the main learn about universalism from their church, they reinvent it themselves and, in society now, often discover it online too.

So his point is that the ungodly arrive at ungodly doctrines on their own? Not surprising, people have been doing that since creation, it’s nothing new.

 

[Hmm]

So his point is that the ungodly arrive at ungodly doctrines on their own? Not surprising.

If that's your take away, enjoy it

 

[Der Alte]

Wouldn't that be an interesting test of whether one really loves the Lord or not? That sure one can live like the devil and still be saved, yet one chooses to seek godliness anyways. What does it say about the Christian and Christianity, if the only reason for not living like the devil, is to avoid going to hell?

Wouldn't it be interesting if you could quote my post in-context and address it in a meaningful manner. Did I misrepresent UR in any way?

 

[Servus]

Wouldn't it be interesting if you could quote my post in-context and address it in a meaningful manner. Did I misrepresent UR in any way?

Is that a trick question?

 

[eleos1954]

Are you saying that applies to Christians who believe in universalism?

Universalism is the belief that we will all (all of mankind) eventually be saved – and that is whether or not one accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

This is not what the bible teaches ... therefore it is a false teaching (a lie).

Universalism directly contradicts what Scripture teaches. While many people accuse Christians of being intolerant and “exclusive,” it is important to remember that these are the words of Christ Himself. Christians did not develop these ideas on their own;

Christians are simply stating what the Lord has already said. People choose to reject the message because they do not want to face up to their sin and admit that they need the Lord to save them.

To say that those who reject God’s provision of salvation through His Son will be saved is to belittle the holiness and justice of God and negate the need of Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf.

 

[Servus]

Universalism is the belief that we will all (all of mankind) eventually be saved – and that is whether or not one accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

This is not what the bible teaches ... therefore it is a false teaching (a lie).

Universalism directly contradicts what Scripture teaches. While many people accuse Christians of being intolerant and “exclusive,” it is important to remember that these are the words of Christ Himself. Christians did not develop these ideas on their own;

Christians are simply stating what the Lord has already said. People choose to reject the message because they do not want to face up to their sin and admit that they need the Lord to save them.

To say that those who reject God’s provision of salvation through His Son will be saved is to belittle the holiness and justice of God and negate the need of Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf.

Universalism does not teach that all of mankind will be saved whether or not one accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The belief is: "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" Philippians 2:10-11

In other words according to Christian universalism, all shall eventually accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

 

[eleos1954]

Universalism does not teach that all of mankind will be saved whether or not one accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The belief is: "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" Philippians 2:10-11

In other words according to Christian universalism, all shall eventually accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

His word is clear ... not all will accept Him.

Need to look at what the teachings are using the bible as a whole .... not just pick out a verse or two and apply them to the whole of scripture.

In both of Paul’s citations of Isaiah 45:23, he is echoing the truth that there will come a time when “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess” to the glory of God. In the Philippians citation, Paul is declaring the divinity of Jesus when he says that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Him as Lord. This is a clear indication of what will occur at the Second Coming of Christ.

These are professed christians

Matthew 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

 

[Der Alte]

Universalism does not teach that all of mankind will be saved whether or not one accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The belief is: "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" Philippians 2:10-11
In other words according to Christian universalism, all shall eventually accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Do you believe that sinners who keep on sinning at some point "at the name of Jesus" will suddenly drop to their knees and "confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father and they will instantly be saved?
In the phrases "every knee should bow" and "every tongue should confess" the verbs "should bow' and "should confess" are in the subjunctive mood. It may or may not happen. It ain't a done deal.

The subjunctive mood primarily refers to HYPOTHETICAL actions in the PRESENT or FUTURE, i.e., in the same time covered by the PRIMARY tenses of verbs.
The Subjunctive Mood – Ancient Greek for Everyone​