Why hasn't Christian universalism ever gone away?

[P1LGR1M]

Annihilation is not a doctrine of cults,

It certainly is.

Read some of the books about cults and you will find a number of them that embrace annihilation.

It is based on a poor understanding of the construct of man, erring first because it attributes man as having a soul rather than the Biblical view that man is a soul.

Because a "soul" goes into the grave, or pit, and a hyper-literal view of that phrase being employed, the picture is that of an immaterial aspect of man literally being in a grave.

A failure to understand the word "sleep" as a euphemism, despite clear Biblical passages that demand the definition of sleep as physical death, this fictitious immaterial aspect of man, the "soul," literally sleeps in a grave.

Find a group that is dichotomous that teaches soul sleep or annihilation. I would be curious to know the Biblical Basis and justification for annihilation.

it goes back to the early church.

A lot of error goes back to the early Church.

Here's an example:


Acts 23:6-7
King James Version

6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.


The error of the Sadducees was addressed by Christ Himself:


Matthew 22:23-29
King James Version

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.


Jesus put those who were teaching false doctrine to silence:


34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.


Oh, and speaking of Pharisees—how about another error in the early Church?

By, not the disciples of Christ—but the very Apostles of Christ:


Galatians 2:9-14
King James Version

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


Know of any legalistic groups that teach annihilation?


Continued...

 

[Servus]

Christian universalism is a misnomer. There is nothing Christian about a belief system that negates the necessity of Christ. God chose to give a Redeemer before He created man.
Saved by grace not by works. The determinate will of God not blanket immunity. Blanket immunity negates the necessity of Christ on the cross and makes His resurrection of no notice.

That's an incorrect description. You don't want to go around spreading misinformation do you?

I can argue against Mormonism without saying things about its doctrine that aren't true. But of course I had to actually learn about its doctrine before I could effectively argue against it.

Christian universalism does not teach that there is salvation without Christ. It does not teach blanket immunity from hell.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Eternal hell on the other hand is found in pagan religions.

So is a global Flood.

Your point would be...?

It is what is found in the Bible that matters, and only that, because it is the Bible that Christian Theology is based upon.

It was the source of authority for Jesus Christ prior to the establishment of the Church through Hiw Work, and it was the source of authority for the Apostles.

It must be the source of Authority for any group that claims to be Christian.

And what do we see in every cult?

Appeals to extra-biblical holy writings. To prophets that "add" to what Christ and the Apostles taught.

Liberal theology systems that cater to current trends and knowledge.

Islam teaches unless you follow Allah you will suffer eternal hell.

They also get the Person of Christ wrong. That is the definition of a cult. Only Christianity properly represents Who the Son of God is, what He did, and how that impacts mankind.

All others are false religions and cults.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

That's an incorrect description. You don't want to go around spreading misinformation do you?

I can argue against Mormonism without saying things about its doctrine that aren't true. But of course I had to actually learn about its doctrine before I could effectively argue against it.

It's not an incorrect description: Universal Salvation negates the necessity of Christ, Who is the central theme of all of Scripture.

Why believe in Christ if someone tells you that you will be forgiven anyway?


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Here is some food for thought. Christian’s throughout history have tortured and murdered by their belief in a god who tortures people for all eternity ,

Going to have to stop you there: why would you assume that it was Christians that committed these atrocities?

Does the statement "You shall know them by their fruit" mean anything to you?

this view ECT has motivated their actions.

Again, syllogistic (and humanistic) reasoning: because they said they were Christians means they were Christians?

If a group of "Christians" was killing their opponents today would you conclude that they were Christians?

John Calvin burned people alive and would have peoples heads cut off if they did not interpret the Bible the way he did.

And...?

This proves that the Biblical Doctrine of Hell cannot mean what it clearly states in Scripture?

Were the Crusades also justified by Scripture?

Was JIm Jones justified by Scripture?

Or would we use common sense and see that their fruit brings into question their claim of being Christian.

This is the reasoning Atheists use to discredit all of Scripture. You simply use it to discredit that which you don't want to accept.

The problem with the eternal torment view is it gives religious people, a motive to hate other people.

Actually, it is more likely that it gives religious people a basis for their erroneous doctrine.

And when the doctrine is condemning people to the very Eternal Torment and Separation from God taught in Scripture it goes far beyond the scope of the evils of the Reformers.

John Calvin could kill his opponents, but he could do nothing after that. He did not cast people into Hell as God will.

Like Sodom, he will fare better than a lot of the false teachers of history.

For some it leads to tormenting and killing other creatures, and people.

Again, philosophy that has no basis in reality.

Human reasoning.

But isn't human reasoning and experience par for the course with Liberal theology?

I have a Southern Baptist view of original sin.

So you won't even answer that question?

I asked for your understanding of Original Sin. Not the view of the group you used to affiliate with.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

Unitarians have very different theology than universalist.

No, they don't. They too believe they can ignore clear teachings of Scripture and reject what parts of the bible don't fit with their system of belief.

If you knew as much as you think you did

If I knew as little as you did I would likely be teaching false doctrines on public platforms.

you would understand the difference.

And of course you are basing your conclusions on what you understand and know.

Typical liberal theology, and the very reason it is easy to dismantle by the Word of God.

Tell you what, I'll let this go, and suggest you do a little more research outside of the teachers you have heaped upon yourself. Then, if you want to divorce Unitarianism from Universalism we can discuss it.

But you lump them both together showing your lack knowledge about their differences.

A man that identified counterfeit money was asked, "I guess you spend a lot of time studying counterfeit money?" He replied, "No, I spend my time studying genuine money. That is how I can identify that which is counterfeit."

I don't have to study the cults and false belief systems, but I do have to study what is genuine. And despite your teaching, one can approach Scripture with a sincere and unbiased intent on discovering what the truth is.

And it is in discussion with people (as opposed to talking at them) that I am able to discover, not only what they believe, but what the basis for that belief is.

That is called discussion.

And when the position of the antagonist is discovered, and it is known upon what they base their belief system on, I try to address what I view to be error.

That is debate.

This is why I asked for your undertanding of Original Sin, because I cannot answer your question as to whether I agree with this view if I don't know what it means to you.


God bless.

 

[public hermit]

Here is some food for thought. Christian’s throughout history have tortured and murdered by their belief in a god who tortures people for all eternity , this view ECT has motivated their actions. John Calvin burned people alive and would have peoples heads cut off if they did not interpret the Bible the way he did.



The problem with the eternal torment view is it gives religious people, a motive to hate other people. For some it leads to tormenting and killing other creatures, and people.

I have a Southern Baptist view of original sin.


Unitarians have very different theology than universalist. If you knew as much as you think you did you would understand the difference. But you lump them both together showing your lack knowledge about their differences.

This connection between how people view God and how they treat others can't be said enough. The John Calvin example is a salient one (I used to be a five-point Calvinist). John Calvin was ruthless with no apparent love for those who disagreed, which was a mirror image of his conception of God.

 

[public hermit]

Would you agree that the English word "eon" is derived from "aionios"? If so, why would a word that means a long but time-limited duration be derived from a word that means eternal?

I know this has probably been pointed out a thousand times in here, but the tendency has been to translate the noun as "age" and the adjective as "eternal." Origen noted that this was a peculiar grammatical move and rejected it. Is it any wonder that it was Greek speaking Xns that embraced apocatastasis?

 

[Hmm]

This connection between how people view God and how they treat others can't be said enough. The John Calvin example is a salient one (I used to be a five-point Calvinist). John Calvin was ruthless with no apparent love for those who disagreed, which was a mirror image of his conception of God.

Yes, we become like whatever it is we worship.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I agree. That's why I pick Baptist or similar churches to attend.

I have issues with some Baptist Doctrine, and do not consider them by any means correct in all doctrine, but Baptists are no different than any other group, they are diverse in certain areas of doctrine.

I have pretty much given up fellowships under the header of Fundamental Baptist. I attend one now, but they are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (but in a limited manner, lol), and a little bit different than what you might find in certain fundamental Baptist churches.

I am also not crazy about the newer trend to have live music on stage. Some of the fellowships we have visited have seemed more like a music show than a worship service. One of them gave me more of a nightclub experience, lol. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer a more reverent atmosphere and congregational singing. I'm all for live music for those who prefer that, and my hope is that the Gospel isn't overshadowed by the music.

As for Christian unversalist churches, I'm not aware of any.

We have a few, but (and don't get offended) I think that is because a denial of Hell isn't something that a sincere Bible Student is going to conclude, despite the claims of "rediscovering" this doctrine, lol.

I think it will appeal to the emotions of many people, but an honest examination of the Scriptural Basis for Eternal Judgment (as enduring) doesn't bring a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" conclusion for anyone.

Most Christians I know of who believe in universalism, prefer conventional conservative churches that teach the kind of orthodox doctrine found in most Baptist (or similar) churches.

It's just a fact that most people attend fellowships where the doctrine is not exactly as they believe. It is probably only about ten percent of the typical congregation that knows exactly what their denomination teaches. Some, if they did understand what their fellowship taught—would probably leave.

Unitarian doctrine is a completely different ball of wax from Christian universalism,

It''s not. But then again, there are differing Unitarian groups.

We could say Reformed Baptists are a completely different ball of wax from Southern Baptists, and that would be true to a certain extent, but in general distinctive doctrines are still held in common.

We could definitely say Reformed Baptists and Southern Baptists are a completely different ball of wax from Unitarian Universalists, because their soteriological views are the exact opposite. There would also be a rejection by most Baptists of an ecumenical disposition, because most Baptists do view Scripture as the authoritative basis for doctrine.

which is just a secondary side doctrine for most.

And I don't really take a position that there are gray areas in Scripture. I don't claim to be able to explain everything, but I firmly believe that God gave us His Word for the express purpose of telling us in distinctive manner what His will for us is. He didn't do that in a confusing way, but directly. What He has made mystery (unrevealed truth) He either eventually explains or gives us enough to draw conclusions about what He has spoken.

I definitely reject a view that it is perfectly acceptable for one Christian Group to believe one thing and another to believe the exact opposite. I'll use adultery as an example: do we have enough to conclude without controversy or not?

I say yes, we have been given enough that we can teach people based on the authority of Scripture that adultery is not God's will for man, that it has consequences, and that we will answer for that sin one day.

Okay, I am about at a point where I am going to take leave of this forum, but I have enjoyed the discussion (as well as being lectured and vilified, lol). One of my primary goals in Doctrinal Debate is to challenge my own views first. It's been a while since I have entered into debate concerning the eternality of Hell and punishment for the lost, but it is a Doctrine that has great importance. I think all of us understand the fallibility of man and our own shortcomings, so it is good to have our beliefs, and the basis for those beliefs challenged when someone else has an opposing view. We should all be ready to give an answer to any man that asketh, right?




God bless.

 

[Der Alte]

* * * Christian universalism does not teach that there is salvation without Christ. It does not teach blanket immunity from hell.

All of the Christian universalists I have encountered on this forum don't believe in Hell at all so why would they teach anything about hell?

 

[FineLinen]

It's not an incorrect description: Universal Salvation negates the necessity of Christ, Who is the central theme of all of Scripture.

"He pre-destined us to be adopted by Himself as sons through Jesus Christ--such being His gracious will and pleasure-- to the praise of the splendour of His grace with which He has enriched us in the beloved One. It is in Him, and through the shedding of His blood, that we have our deliverance--the forgiveness of our offences--so abundant was God's grace, the grace which He, the possessor of all wisdom and understanding, lavished upon us, when He made known to us the secret of His will. And this is in harmony with God's merciful purpose for the government of the world when the times are ripe for it--the purpose which He has cherished in His own mind of restoring the whole creation to find its one Head in Christ; yes, things in Heaven and things on earth, to find their one Head in Him. In Him we have been made heirs, having been chosen beforehand in accordance with the intention of Him whose might carries out in everything the design of His own will, so that we should be devoted to the extolling of His glorious attributes--we who were the first to fix our hopes on Christ. ~R.F.Weymouth

 

[David's Harp]

I have issues with some Baptist Doctrine, and do not consider them by any means correct in all doctrine, but Baptists are no different than any other group, they are diverse in certain areas of doctrine.

I have pretty much given up fellowships under the header of Fundamental Baptist. I attend one now, but they are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (but in a limited manner, lol), and a little bit different than what you might find in certain fundamental Baptist churches.

I am also not crazy about the newer trend to have live music on stage. Some of the fellowships we have visited have seemed more like a music show than a worship service. One of them gave me more of a nightclub experience, lol. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer a more reverent atmosphere and congregational singing. I'm all for live music for those who prefer that, and my hope is that the Gospel isn't overshadowed by the music.




We have a few, but (and don't get offended) I think that is because a denial of Hell isn't something that a sincere Bible Student is going to conclude, despite the claims of "rediscovering" this doctrine, lol.

I think it will appeal to the emotions of many people, but an honest examination of the Scriptural Basis for Eternal Judgment (as enduring) doesn't bring a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" conclusion for anyone.



It's just a fact that most people attend fellowships where the doctrine is not exactly as they believe. It is probably only about ten percent of the typical congregation that knows exactly what their denomination teaches. Some, if they did understand what their fellowship taught—would probably leave.




It''s not. But then again, there are differing Unitarian groups.

We could say Reformed Baptists are a completely different ball of wax from Southern Baptists, and that would be true to a certain extent, but in general distinctive doctrines are still held in common.

We could definitely say Reformed Baptists and Southern Baptists are a completely different ball of wax from Unitarian Universalists, because their soteriological views are the exact opposite. There would also be a rejection by most Baptists of an ecumenical disposition, because most Baptists do view Scripture as the authoritative basis for doctrine.




And I don't really take a position that there are gray areas in Scripture. I don't claim to be able to explain everything, but I firmly believe that God gave us His Word for the express purpose of telling us in distinctive manner what His will for us is. He didn't do that in a confusing way, but directly. What He has made mystery (unrevealed truth) He either eventually explains or gives us enough to draw conclusions about what He has spoken.

I definitely reject a view that it is perfectly acceptable for one Christian Group to believe one thing and another to believe the exact opposite. I'll use adultery as an example: do we have enough to conclude without controversy or not?

I say yes, we have been given enough that we can teach people based on the authority of Scripture that adultery is not God's will for man, that it has consequences, and that we will answer for that sin one day.

Okay, I am about at a point where I am going to take leave of this forum, but I have enjoyed the discussion (as well as being lectured and vilified, lol). One of my primary goals in Doctrinal Debate is to challenge my own views first. It's been a while since I have entered into debate concerning the eternality of Hell and punishment for the lost, but it is a Doctrine that has great importance. I think all of us understand the fallibility of man and our own shortcomings, so it is good to have our beliefs, and the basis for those beliefs challenged when someone else has an opposing view. We should all be ready to give an answer to any man that asketh, right?




God bless.

Thanks for sharing P1LGR1M. Nicely done. God Bless.

 

[Der Alte]

I do not use UR scholars as you continue to falsely claim.
While your life has had some interesting moments your position is ECT, making it your bias. It is humorous that you are unable to be honest about your bias. Thanks

It is NOT bias to be able to clearly show from scripture that what I believe about, the correct Biblical term is, "eternal punishment" is in fact scriptural.
I have one verse spoken by Jesus to support my belief. I have posted this multiple times and I can't recall anyone addressing it and certainly not refuting it.

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”​

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and the 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18. Some mis/uninformed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.” However, that is an etymological fallacy. According to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
…..It is understood that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the Greek speaking EOB scholars, backed up by 2000 years +/- of Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of obsolete words which occur in the KJV and to translate them correctly.
And quoting an opposing translation by some UR "scholar" does not refute anything.

 

[public hermit]

All of the Christian universalists I have encountered on this forum don't believe in Hell at all so why would they teach anything about hell?

???

That's an inaccurate statement, and I think you know that. You know some proponents of UR believe in hell. It's just not eternal; it's purgative and restorative.

 

[Der Alte]

???
That's an inaccurate statement, and I think you know that. You know some proponents of UR believe in hell. It's just not eternal; it's purgative and restorative.

One is not some! Too bad there is no scripture to support a "purgative and restorative" hell.

 

[Der Alte]

...

"He pre-destined us to be adopted by Himself as sons through Jesus Christ--such being His gracious will and pleasure-- to the praise of the splendour of His grace with which He has enriched us in the beloved One. It is in Him, and through the shedding of His blood, that we have our deliverance--the forgiveness of our offences--so abundant was God's grace, the grace which He, the possessor of all wisdom and understanding, lavished upon us, when He made known to us the secret of His will. And this is in harmony with God's merciful purpose for the government of the world when the times are ripe for it--the purpose which He has cherished in His own mind of restoring the whole creation to find its one Head in Christ; yes, things in Heaven and things on earth, to find their one Head in Him. In Him we have been made heirs, having been chosen beforehand in accordance with the intention of Him whose might carries out in everything the design of His own will, so that we should be devoted to the extolling of His glorious attributes--we who were the first to fix our hopes on Christ. ~R.F.Weymouth

Unfortunately I cannot find the book of Weymouth in my Bible. Do you think it is possible you could support the above fairy tale from scripture?

 

[public hermit]

One is not some! Too bad there is no scripture to support a "purgative and restorative" hell.

I'm confident there are some proponents of Xn UR that believe in hell; perhaps it's the majority.

Yes, we know you believe hell is eternal, but it's disingenuous and unhelpful to not acknowledge the reality of your opponent's position.

The reality is, the unquenchable fires of hell could very well refer to the divine presence, who is a consuming fire. I think that makes more sense than some eternal place, whatever that means. Most proponents of Xn UR that believe in a concept of hell think of it in just that way: hell is a more direct experience of the divine presence, but the individual is ill prepared to enter into a more direct experience of eternal love. This would be in keeping with the general conception of hell among those of the Alexandrian School, I think.

 

[Der Alte]

I'm confident there are some proponents of Xn UR that believe in hell; perhaps it's the majority.
Yes, we know you believe hell is eternal, but it's disingenuous and unhelpful to not acknowledge the reality of your opponent's position.
The reality is, the unquenchable fires of hell could very well refer to the divine presence, who is a consuming fire. I think that makes more sense than some eternal place, whatever that means. Most proponents of Xn UR that believe in a concept of hell think of it in just that way: hell is a more direct experience of the divine presence, but the individual is ill prepared to enter into a more direct experience of eternal love. This would be in keeping with the general conception of hell among those of the Alexandrian School, I think.

"I'm confident there are some proponents of Xn UR that believe in hell; perhaps it's the majority." "Perhaps" you can support this claim?
"it's disingenuous and unhelpful to not acknowledge the reality of your opponent's position." But you don't think it is disingenuous and unhelpful to not acknowledge the reality of my belief dismissing out of hand everything I post e.g. Matt 25:46 1 John 4:18
"The reality is, the unquenchable fires of hell could very well refer to the divine presence, who is a consuming fire." Ignore the scripture I post and respond with supposition.
"I think that makes more sense than some eternal place, whatever that means." More supposition
"Most proponents of Xn UR that believe in a concept of hell think of it in just that way: hell is a more direct experience of the divine presence, but the individual is ill prepared to enter into a more direct experience of eternal love." No, zero, none scripture!
"This would be in keeping with the general conception of hell among those of the Alexandrian School, I think." Again no scripture.

 

[public hermit]

"I'm confident there are some proponents of Xn UR that believe in hell; perhaps it's the majority." "Perhaps" you can support this claim?
"it's disingenuous and unhelpful to not acknowledge the reality of your opponent's position." But you don't think it is disingenuous and unhelpful to not acknowledge the reality of my belief dismissing out of hand everything I post e.g. Matt 25:46 1 John 4:18
"The reality is, the unquenchable fires of hell could very well refer to the divine presence, who is a consuming fire." Ignore the scripture I post and respond with supposition.
"I think that makes more sense than some eternal place, whatever that means." More supposition
"Most proponents of Xn UR that believe in a concept of hell think of it in just that way: hell is a more direct experience of the divine presence, but the individual is ill prepared to enter into a more direct experience of eternal love." No, zero, none scripture!
"This would be in keeping with the general conception of hell among those of the Alexandrian School, I think." Again no scripture.

Of course, I didn't post scripture because I'm talking about an interpretation of scripture. You are also talking about an interpretation of scripture. The difference between you and I is that you seem to think if you post a wall of passages that your interpretation somehow becomes unmitigated truth.