Possibly stupid newie question - What makes the idea of universalism bad?

When you find out, let me know.

Well, nobody wants the riffraff. Of course, we're all somebody's riffraff.

Being a heretic never hurt anyone... unless the self proclaimed "orthodox" decide to burn them at the stake.

TreeHouse said:

I apologize if this is a dumb question, and maybe even getting really simle answers wil help me to understand better, but as a person who was always pretty much a rank and file agnostic, one of my main challenges I faceed when I became a follower of Christ was dealing with the exclusionary model of Christianity.

That said, I realize (perhaps naively so) that the idea of having such thoughts makes me either a heretic or a lunatic depening on who you ask. I also can see where many denominations and religious sects would essentially lose their main reasoning and arguments for why they are how they are. Perhaps it has too much of the idea of religious socialism and therefore negates any real scrutiny?

I guess I am just trying to find out why the idea of universal salvation is considered a bad one. I would think it would be a great thing, but my thoughts on most religious items (faith, the bible, etc.) are not really mainstream though either (hence why I am in here ). Any thoughts or ideas or even research suggestions are great. Thanks!

Click to expand...

It's a good idea. The question is, is it a true idea?

I suppose I'm what you'd call a theoretical universalist (aka Amyraldian, at least in Calvinist circles). I think it's possible that all can be saved. Christ's sacrifice on the cross is available for all and suffices for all. And I think God wants everyone to be saved... and what God wants, God generally gets.

However, it seems that some will always stubbornly reject that free gift... and God isn't going to have His heavenly bouncers grab you and toss you in against your will. "Sorry, buddy, you don't got a choice! Into heaven you go!" God respects our free will too much to do that to us. If He'd wanted automatons, of course He could've done that -- but that's not what He wanted.

TreeHouse said:

I apologize if this is a dumb question, and maybe even getting really simle answers wil help me to understand better, but as a person who was always pretty much a rank and file agnostic, one of my main challenges I faceed when I became a follower of Christ was dealing with the exclusionary model of Christianity.

That said, I realize (perhaps naively so) that the idea of having such thoughts makes me either a heretic or a lunatic depening on who you ask. I also can see where many denominations and religious sects would essentially lose their main reasoning and arguments for why they are how they are. Perhaps it has too much of the idea of religious socialism and therefore negates any real scrutiny?

I guess I am just trying to find out why the idea of universal salvation is considered a bad one. I would think it would be a great thing, but my thoughts on most religious items (faith, the bible, etc.) are not really mainstream though either (hence why I am in here ). Any thoughts or ideas or even research suggestions are great. Thanks!

Click to expand...

MY COMMENTS: It is not a dumb question at all. From my extensive studies, I believe literal (more accurate) translations set forth God's glorious plan that, indeed, Christ died to take away the sin of the world; that God is not some fiend who would subject humans to a conscious eternal torment in flames, as the popular view proclaims.

Words in the originals: "olam" in Hebrew, and "aion" in Greek, were given the false meanings of "forever" or "eternal" back in the days of the church fathers, such as Augustine of Hippo. But, usage will show that they should be translated as "age" or "age-lasting" for the adjective "aionion."

God is using the ages as a canvas, if you will, to show forth His purpose of the ages (eons), to head up all things in Christ at the consummation of the ages, when all enemies, both in the heavens and on the earth, are subject to Christ. (Eph. 1:10-12; 3:11). And then all will be reconciled to God through Christ, thus making peace in the universe (Col. 1:19, 20).

Oh, there will be a time when God's vengeance will be repaid. Some of it will be the woes and plagues that will occur during the great tribulation.
And, it will occur individually on those who deserve it, at the Great White Throne Judging. Paul writes that men, because of their hardness and unrepentant heart are hoarding wrath and indignation at the just judgment of God (through Christ). There will be indignation and fury, affliction and distress (Rom. 2:3-10). Those whose names are not written in the book of life are then cast into the lake of fire--which is the second death (notice, this is not "eternal" death: they are dead until they are raised to life when "Death", the last enemy is abolished (1 Cor. 15:27) at the consummation of the ages (eons).

Then with all enemies in the universe subject to Christ, he turns over the kingdom to his God and Father, that God may be All in all (1 Cor. 15:22-28)

Hello

St Gregory of Nyssa I believe was an early Universalist and an embarrassment to some church teachings.

I think the problem many people have with universalism is religious works. If Jesus died to save the whole world then it's his work, not ours.

If on the other hand we need to do good works to get to heaven, then it's our works, we can feel pride and look down on others who dont go to church, dont tithe, dont hate minorities and go through the same self-inflicted legalistic pain as we do.

One of the problems with universalism is that it is often applied to Unitarians these days, who most of Christendom do not regard as Christians.

Christian Universalism is different from that held to by Unitarians in that Christian Universalists believe that while everyone will eventually be saved, they must accept Jesus as their personal saviour, whether in this life or the next.

I am undecided on this subject.

People are bloodthirsty to the core, and desire to see "bad people" suffer rather than be redeemed to their Father, because that way they too are allowed to hate who God hates. It's a scarier world for some people if hatred of others is not allowed, because they know it is a standard they cannot meet. Sometimes for understandable reasons. A lot of the people I know who are passionate defenders of eternal hellfire, are so because they want redress for something done to them personally. No one wants to meet their rapist in heaven, you know? It's a violent life, so we created a violent afterlife to go with it.

On the other end of this are those who believe that when we die we cease to exist unless we are Christians. They are few in number, but seem to be growing. They would argue that this ties in with a loving God - if you accept Christ you go to heaven, but if not you simply die and know nothing about anything anymore.

I have no problem with universalism. To understand why some do, we need to look at the whole context of their theology. For some, if they generally believe that the Bible is literally true, then a passage like Matthew 25:31-46 (parable of the sheep and the goats) with its reference to eternal punishment for those who don't feed the hungry, clothe the naked etc, gives sufficient evidence that they have to believe that some will be damned.

For others, the issue is tied up with a strong sense that salvation is a gift God offers, that it is up to us to accept. With this view, it isn't a matter of God damning people, but people refusing to accept God's offer, and God respecting their freedom. C.S. Lewis puts this sort of view very well. For his theological discussion, see 'The Great Divorce'; for the view illustrated in story form, see the last of the Narnia books, 'The Last Battle', especially the dwarves who simply refuse to see the new Narnia, however compelling the evidence for it is.

For some, perhaps especially within a number of Protestant traditions, the idea that salvation is by faith in Christ alone is interpreted as meaning that individuals have to consciously accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour, and that this must be done during this earthly life, as one's eternal fate is set at death. This of course provides a great motivation for evangelism, but does imply that many people will fail to meet that requirement.

In summary, many good and loving people have what seem to them to be compelling reasons for rejecting Universalism. I don't think it is always because of a bloodthirsty or exclusivist mentality, though it may sometimes be.

My consistent stance is that I can never have the right to judge anybody as fit for hell: that includes Judas Iscariot, Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden and any one else. God judges, and he is Love, and all those people are his children as much as me, which must affect how he receives them.

Elitism never works with being inclusive.

Plus if people believe that crimes done in this world can be paid back in completely different world, the idea that everything reconciled with a positive outcome is incompatible.

Universalism makes the Cross pointless, and if it is that universalism comes about BECAUSE of the cross, then you make Christ a liar.

TreeHouse said:

Care to clarify that instead of just saying it makes Jesus a liar?

Click to expand...

What part about not coming to the Father except through Jesus makes sense if in the end we all come to the father? Or about the folks that in the end will be saying "Lord, Lord" yet they will be dismissed as never being known? none of this can be possible if universalism is true.

I find going against the general Orthodox scheme of things to be in poor taste, I mean yeah this is the liberal CHRISTIAN section of the forum, but the throwing around of heretical ideas seems to go on far too often. The salvation of all mankind isn't bad, but it isn't scriptural either, thus entertaining such ideas is a waist of time, because clearly not all are saved in the end.

Searching_for_Christ said:

I find going against the general Orthodox scheme of things to be in poor taste, I mean yeah this is the liberal CHRISTIAN section of the forum, but the throwing around of heretical ideas seems to go on far too often. The salvation of all mankind isn't bad, but it isn't scriptural either, thus entertaining such ideas is a waist of time, because clearly not all are saved in the end.

Click to expand...

If you are open to discussion then what about 1 Timothy 4:10

Our Lord is the saviour of all men, especially of believers.

If it's all cut and dried and not open to discussion as you say, there are parts of the bible you will have to get around first.

God Bless

Searching_for_Christ said:

Universalism makes the Cross pointless, and if it is that universalism comes about BECAUSE of the cross, then you make Christ a liar.

Click to expand...

If I save five people I happen to be friends with from a burning building while letting ten others burn to death inside, I'm a hero, but if I save all fifteen, I'm a liar and my actions are pointless?

I refuse to accept any theology which makes me more merciful and compassionate than God.