Universalism Heresy

[John M8473]

One simple question. Why is universalism seen as heretical, but neither Calvinist limited atonement and Arminian general atonement (which completely contradict one another) are not - except by 'hyper' calvinist/arminians? (incidentally, the "hyper" of those doctrines is just their logical conclusions, so I actually understand them better than the "tolerant" centrism of mainstream C and A doctrines)

To me, this just seems to be another soteriological discussion to be had. Not to divide over, but to explore the greatness of God in.

So, in a concise way, can someone tell me why UR is heretical? I'm not speaking of the Unitarian Universalists, which is nothing more than a liberal social justice group. I'm speaking of the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation/Restoration, also known as the "apokatastasis"

Thank you

EDIT: I don't mean "do you agree with it", or "this is how it's wrong". I mean HERETICAL as in someone who believes this is not considered a Christian.

 

[sandman]

One simple question. Why is universalism seen as heretical, but neither Calvinist limited atonement and Arminian general atonement (which completely contradict one another) are not - except by 'hyper' calvinist/arminians? (incidentally, the "hyper" of those doctrines is just their logical conclusions, so I actually understand them better than the "tolerant" centrism of mainstream C and A doctrines)

To me, this just seems to be another soteriological discussion to be had. Not to divide over, but to explore the greatness of God in.

So, in a concise way, can someone tell me why UR is heretical? I'm not speaking of the Unitarian Universalists, which is nothing more than a liberal social justice group. I'm speaking of the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation/Restoration, also known as the "apokatastasis"

Thank you

EDIT: I don't mean "do you agree with it", or "this is how it's wrong". I mean HERETICAL as in someone who believes this is not considered a Christian.

That is a valid argument.
I don't use the heresy label in regards to beliefs or denominations.... Whatever is in line with the Word is → truth whatever is not in line with the written Word is → error... there is no gray area with God..... What people believe is irrelevant.... unless it lines up with the Truth.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

One simple question. Why is universalism seen as heretical, but neither Calvinist limited atonement and Arminian general atonement (which completely contradict one another) are not - except by 'hyper' calvinist/arminians? (incidentally, the "hyper" of those doctrines is just their logical conclusions, so I actually understand them better than the "tolerant" centrism of mainstream C and A doctrines)

To me, this just seems to be another soteriological discussion to be had. Not to divide over, but to explore the greatness of God in.

So, in a concise way, can someone tell me why UR is heretical? I'm not speaking of the Unitarian Universalists, which is nothing more than a liberal social justice group. I'm speaking of the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation/Restoration, also known as the "apokatastasis"

Thank you

EDIT: I don't mean "do you agree with it", or "this is how it's wrong". I mean HERETICAL as in someone who believes this is not considered a Christian.

In our culture using the word heretical may be too harsh. Technically we can only use it to describe the teachings of an influential teacher. The rest of us are basically victims of that teaching.
I agree exposing false doctrines should be done however, it is probably a step too far for many to call Augustine heretical. Blessings.

 

[Servus]

Probably because universalism has been around since the early church and was officially called a heresy at a counsel long before the reformation. And the Protestant reformers decided to roll with that decision. I've heard back when it was classified as a heresy, that term wasn't as negative as it is these days.

 

[John M8473]

Thanks for the replies.
I suppose I still don't understand WHY it's deemed a heresy. I see it as another soteriological argument to discuss, nothing more.

What essential Christian doctrine does it deny?

 

[Servus]

Thanks for the replies.
I suppose I still don't understand WHY it's deemed a heresy. I see it as another soteriological argument to discuss, nothing more.

What essential Christian doctrine does it deny?

The doctrine of the punishment of the wicked is eternal conscious torment.

Also many say it violates free will. Described as God isn't going to force people to become saved.

 

[John M8473]

The doctrine of the punishment of the wicked is eternal conscious torment.

Also many say it violates free will. Described as God isn't going to force people to become saved.

Many say Calvinism violates free will. Many Calvinists say there is no such thing as free will. God doesn't "force" anything. He simply adjusts the temperature so to speak until you willingly submit. He did it with me (and continues to when I fall back into disobedience, however minor). And I believe that there's a valid argument to be made that God's will is paramount to man's will. The autonomous "free will" sounds more like an American freedom loving concept than anything I see in Scripture.

God violated Job's free will by removing his family and possessions, then removing his health, then having his friends condemn him, then He Himself giving Job a "piece of His mind" until Job finally said "my ears had heard of You, but now my eyes see You and I abhor myself in dust and ashes" (paraphrase), and Isaiah, after being humbled, was cleansed against his will as well when the cherubim brought a hot coal and touched his lips after he saw God and said "woe is me for I am undone, I am a man of unclean lips...". Isaiah had no say in the matter. Neither did Job. Neither did Saul of Tarsus, who was knocked off his horse and blinded by the brightness of God's light and humbled into the Apostle Paul.

God's goodness and light shines on the darkness and dispels it. There is no violation of free will in that act. Any more than saving a drowning person is violating their will or raising Lazarus from the dead was a violation of his will. God does what He wills and man must submit. He has no choice in the face of the Almighty.

That's what I think about free will, anyway. Maybe that's a tangent lol

I don't see how ECT is an "essential" doctrine.

 

[Servus]

Many say Calvinism violates free will. Many Calvinists say there is no such thing as free will. God doesn't "force" anything. He simply adjusts the temperature so to speak until you willingly submit. He did it with me (and continues to when I fall back into disobedience, however minor). And I believe that there's a valid argument to be made that God's will is paramount to man's will. The autonomous "free will" sounds more like an American freedom loving concept than anything I see in Scripture.

God violated Job's free will by removing his family and possessions, then removing his health, then having his friends condemn him, then He Himself giving Job a "piece of His mind" until Job finally said "my ears had heard of You, but now my eyes see You and I abhor myself in dust and ashes" (paraphrase), and Isaiah, after being humbled, was cleansed against his will as well when the cherubim brought a hot coal and touched his lips after he saw God and said "woe is me for I am undone, I am a man of unclean lips...". Isaiah had no say in the matter. Neither did Job. Neither did Saul of Tarsus, who was knocked off his horse and blinded by the brightness of God's light and humbled into the Apostle Paul.

God's goodness and light shines on the darkness and dispels it. There is no violation of free will in that act. Any more than saving a drowning person is violating their will or raising Lazarus from the dead was a violation of his will. God does what He wills and man must submit. He has no choice in the face of the Almighty.

That's what I think about free will, anyway. Maybe that's a tangent lol

That's all been argued to death on threads about universalism of course.

I don't see how ECT is an "essential" doctrine.

It's the only orthodox doctrine regarding the fate of the wicked in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and mainline and evangelical Protestantism. The only exception I know of is Seventh-day Adventism which has a doctrine of annihilation.

Most Christians view ECT as extremely essential in getting people saved. The argument being if there isn't ETC, what's there to save people from? And the price paid in Christ's sacrifice to save us is diminished if there isn't ECT to save us from.

The saying that Jesus talked more about hell than heaven.

 

[John M8473]

Most Christians view ECT as extremely essential in getting people saved. The argument being if there isn't ETC, what's there to save people from? And the price paid in Christ's sacrifice to save us is diminished if there isn't ECT to save us from.

The saying that Jesus talked more about hell than heaven.

I wonder where Scripture says we are saved from hell? Let's throw those verses up and discuss them. Because my understanding, the more I get into this UR doctrine, is that Jesus came as a conquering King to save us from the prison of sin we are in.

And that image truly reflects the entirety of the OT in that there were kings fighting and taking kingdoms left and right. So when Jesus came in riding a donkey, the imagery was of a would-be king (in the people's perspective anyway, He of course WAS and IS the King of kings). The people believed He was coming to conquer the Roman occupation and establish a new kingdom (Peter said as much after the resurrection), but Jesus had a different kingdom in mind to conquer. The kingdom of darkness.

Colossians 1:13-14: “He has delivered us from the domain (kingdom) of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

That verse also defines redemption, and it is not from hell/gehenna/tartarus, but rather it is the forgiveness of sins.

I know we're getting into the weeds beyond what I originally asked, so forgive me. I do appreciate your perspective. I'm here to discuss things, after all

Incidentally, I don't think it's accurate to say that Jesus spoke more about hell than heaven. That claim sounded off to me and google gave me some results that contradict your claim.

 

[Rajni]

Incidentally, I don't think it's accurate to say that Jesus spoke more about hell than heaven. That claim sounded off to me and google gave me some results that contradict your claim.

There was a (short-lived) thread about this very subject back in 2018.
Back then I conducted a little experiment to see if, indeed, it were true.
My post in that thread about my findings is here.

 

[zippy2006]

One simple question. Why is universalism seen as heretical, but neither Calvinist limited atonement and Arminian general atonement (which completely contradict one another) are not - except by 'hyper' calvinist/arminians?

Universalism is heretical because it is gravely contrary to Christianity. Most Christians would also deem limited atonement to be heretical.

Thanks for the replies.
I suppose I still don't understand WHY it's deemed a heresy. I see it as another soteriological argument to discuss, nothing more.

What essential Christian doctrine does it deny?

A great many, as well as Scripture. I explained one central problem with Universalism in <this post>.

(Feel free to bring any of my linked responses into this thread rather than posting in the old threads)

I don't see how ECT is an "essential" doctrine.

I wrote a post on this <here>. That post is instructive because when the Church addresses a heresy it is generally addressing the doctrinal root of bad praxis. The bad praxis caused by Universalism involves the sin of presumption.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

One simple question. Why is universalism seen as heretical, but neither Calvinist limited atonement and Arminian general atonement (which completely contradict one another) are not - except by 'hyper' calvinist/arminians? (incidentally, the "hyper" of those doctrines is just their logical conclusions, so I actually understand them better than the "tolerant" centrism of mainstream C and A doctrines)

To me, this just seems to be another soteriological discussion to be had. Not to divide over, but to explore the greatness of God in.

So, in a concise way, can someone tell me why UR is heretical? I'm not speaking of the Unitarian Universalists, which is nothing more than a liberal social justice group. I'm speaking of the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation/Restoration, also known as the "apokatastasis"

Thank you

EDIT: I don't mean "do you agree with it", or "this is how it's wrong". I mean HERETICAL as in someone who believes this is not considered a Christian.

If universalism is true then in the end it doesn't matter in this life what anyone believes since we are all saved in the end and all enjoy the benefits of redemption.

If I really believed it was true then I would live a selfish, self centered life and not a selfless and sacrificial life devoted to God. Since I would benefit eternally not living for God in the here and now then why live for God at all if He is going to save me anyways and have no negative consequences living a life down here for myself. Besides the above it makes Gods word untrue with all the promises for both the faithful and the unbelievers.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

In our culture using the word heretical may be too harsh. Technically we can only use it to describe the teachings of an influential teacher. The rest of us are basically victims of that teaching.
I agree exposing false doctrines should be done however, it is probably a step too far for many to call Augustine heretical. Blessings.

I have no problem calling out all the heresies that augustine brought into the church from Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy and paganism.