Universalism...why not?

Which is it?

  • God doesn't want all men to be saved.

    Votes: 4 8.2%
  • God can't do what he wants to do.

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Neither, God will continue to work on unrepentant souls because his love & patience are unending.

    Votes: 40 81.6%
  • Don't know...never thought about this before.

    Votes: 3 6.1%

  • Total voters
    49

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Site Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
From an earlier point made by ClementA:

"Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus."~Acts 4:13

Speaking of the religious leaders:

"Leave them! They are blind guides of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."~Matthew 15:14
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
* * * Deleted * * *
Fallacious irrelevant argument deleted, already addressed and refuted more than once. I remember Jim Jones and Vernon Howell, AKA David Koresh, both accumulated a bunch of followers, all of whom perished and neither had any scholastic qualifications. So I think it is very prudent to inquire about the qualifications of people who present themselves as scripturally knowledgeable.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Fallacious irrelevant argument deleted, already addressed and refuted more than once. I remember Jim Jones and Vernon Howell, AKA David Koresh, both accumulated a bunch of followers, all of whom perished and neither had any scholastic qualifications. So I think it is very prudent to inquire about the qualifications of people who present themselves as scripturally knowledgeable.

The highly scholastically qualified Pharisees were leading men astray:

"Jesus warned His disciples to “watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees,” which was their false teaching (Matt. 16:6,12)."

The Pharisees taught everlasting torments.

"Not giving heed to Jewish myths, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14). Jesus said re the Pharisees: "...in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mt.15:8-9)

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Matthew 23:13)

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (Jn.16:13a)

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

"The Third Law of Theology: For every theologian there is an equal and opposite theologian."
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From an earlier point made by ClementA:
"Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus."~Acts 4:13
Speaking of the religious leaders:
"Leave them! They are blind guides of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."~Matthew 15:14
Irrelevant. I don't know of anyone who was personally called, instructed and commissioned by Jesus Himself.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The highly scholastically qualified Pharisees were leading men astray:...
Irrelevant, specious argument unless you can show me someone who was personally called, instructed and commissioned by Jesus Himself.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Irrelevant. I don't know of anyone who was personally called, instructed and commissioned by Jesus Himself.

Scripture & the teaching of the Holy Spirit become "irrelevant" when traditions of men like the Pharisees are considered more important.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Jn.14:6)

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (Jn.16:13a)

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: mkgal1
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Site Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That's why it's called "faith" and not "certainty". Many people say that about God as well (and many aren't doing a very convincing job of displaying this religion as the one focused on "loving one another as I've loved you").
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Rajni
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
My question is, if Gods love and patience is unending, is that to say that He would reach out to people, even after death? Or is it then too late to be loved?

IMO it's never too late.

1 Cor.13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing...
4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away...
13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive... 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajni
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's why it's called "faith" and not "certainty". Many people say that about God as well (and many aren't doing a very convincing job of displaying this religion as the one focused on "loving one another as I've loved you").
You can't be serious! Didn't you see my example of Jim Jones and David Koresh? I'm supposed to have blind faith in every Tom, Dick and Mary who comes along claiming that only they have the true truth saying "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh! and the church has been wrong for 2000 years." And I might add no credible evidence of any kind. Sorry ma'am I ain't drinking that koolaid.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Scripture & the teaching of the Holy Spirit become "irrelevant" when traditions of men like the Pharisees are considered more important....
Go look in a mirror!
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Site Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm supposed to have blind faith in every Tom, Dick and Mary who comes along claiming that only they have the true truth saying "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh! and the church has been wrong for 2000 years." And I might add no credible evidence of any kind. Sorry ma'am I ain't drinking that koolaid.
Nope. I said nothing about "blind faith".

OTOH.....look at the characteristics of the Pharisees (these are who we ARE NOT supposed to follow--that much is clear in the Bible):

  1. Arrogance
    Matthew 3:9
  2. Focus on external "righteousness"
  3. Matthew 5:20
  4. Isolate themselves from others
    Matthew 9:11
  5. Very critical of others/missing point of instruction ~Matthew 12:2
  6. Neglect their own parents & others in the name of religion~Matthew 15:1-9
  7. Spiritually blind~Matthew 15:14
  8. Hypocritical~Luke 12:1
  9. Seek to catch and trick others in their words~Matthew 19:3; Matthew 22:15; Luke 11:54
  10. Hard-hearted~Matthew 15:8
  11. Have knowledge without obedience~Matthew 23:2
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This line of John Donne is often misunderstood. It comes from Meditation XVII of his Devotions upon emergent occassions.

It is a call for man to trust to God. The whole work is regarding recovery from an illness and is predicated on the two greatest commandments, to love God and to Love thy neighbour. The idea being that they are associated ideals, hence everything that happens to anyone touches me also. The Meditation ends where Donne says that perhaps someone else's misfortune will do you good.

Here is the next part of the Meditation that is so often ommited:

"Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction. If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another's danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security."

I myself don't see universalism here applied or intimated.

I see nothing there that's incompatible with a universalist position either. I don't know enough about John Donne to know what his exact stance on the issue was, but this is the type of thinking that can certainly blossom into a fullblown universalism.

I am not a universalist. To me, universalism fails in that it renders all our moral struggles moot and the whole idea of Sin and Justice irrelevant.

Not at all! The only thing universalism does is discard retributive justice in favor of restorative justice; any theologically sound version isn't going to downplay sin at all. If anything, I would say that moral struggle is ultimately legitimized, since in a universalist framework it will necessarily have value in and of itself and can't be reduced to a simple means of escaping punishment.

To what degree it's biblical is another question entirely, and one I'm not qualified to weigh in on one way or the other. (Though as far as I'm concerned, that goes for anyone who doesn't speak Koine Greek!)

Back to Silmarien's post:
It is an interesting quandary you posit. It reminds me of Buddhist thinking, how the Self consists of Khandas, 'heaps' of ideas and feelings constantly changing and absorbing or losing elements from what is around us and other people we meet.
I have no problem seeing man as a composite being, consisting of Soul, Spirit, Body, Mind (conscious and subconscious) etc. with elements absorbed from everyone we meet into our conceptions. There is however a central element, somehow connected to this superficial existential flux, that seems to be the active participant. This is impacted, forged or changed by our actions and the events of our lives and I think in this manner it would carry forth elements of others. I do not see why it need carry the entirety of them along though, for all are compositions of various elements and perhaps we merely have taken parts thereof.
The world is a crucible forging sons of God and I fail to see why taking specks of gold from others necessitates appropriating the dross as well.

I think that the sort of argument David Bentley Hart is making would probably be stronger from a Trinitarian perspective than something mired in Eastern philosophy. (I suspect that he's done so elsewhere, but I haven't gotten around to reading his heavier theological work yet.) If the argument were framed less in terms of philosophy of mind and more in terms of theology and the importance of relationships, it would work better. If someone who is ultimately unsaved had a positive effect on you, is that suddenly the dross that you're not going to be appropriating? I really don't think there's enough black and white in the realm of interpersonal relationships to make sorting them out a simple task, so I still see it as difficult to keep from losing significant portions of your identity.

I should say that I definitely believe in a more concrete, platonic "self" as well. My concern is simply continuity between what we are and what we are to become--restoring what is actually broken is one thing, but if you start tearing out anything that has roots in anyone who was ultimately tossed aside, I do wonder if there's enough continuity left to refer to what emerges from that process as "salvation" from the human perspective.

...personally, I can't foresee how the ultimate demise in the long term of Nero, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot (or anyone like them) will diminish me in the presence of Christ for eternity. I'm not saying this as a criticism, but as a point of philosophical and theological contemplation.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Yes, I understand. I don't think that the point of the argument is that it would diminish you personally, but that it would diminish those who were close to them (presumably before they turned into the people they ended up being), whose diminishment would then in turn affect those closest to them, so a web of interconnected relationships is still involved in the end.

I should point out that I don't think these particular situations are really a problem for the form of universalism that simply suggests that the gates of hell are locked from the inside and that nobody is technically incapable of repentence. The strong universalistic stance that everyone will ultimately be saved is obviously a much bigger claim. (Though... I do find it theologically attractive in an intimidatingly maximalistic kind of way.)
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,143
9,951
The Void!
✟1,130,612.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, I understand. I don't think that the point of the argument is that it would diminish you personally, but that it would diminish those who were close to them (presumably before they turned into the people they ended up being), whose diminishment would then in turn affect those closest to them, so a web of interconnected relationships is still involved in the end.
I guess I'm approaching this as a thought experiment, Silmarien. And I'm thinking ...universalism seems to imply to me that God's Being would somehow be insufficient to uphold our happiness in eternity, as if our pains and sorrows--any pains and sorrows we might take with us into the afterlife--would somehow be impregnable or undisplaceable by the Glory of Christ.

I should point out that I don't think these particular situations are really a problem for the form of universalism that simply suggests that the gates of hell are locked from the inside and that nobody is technically incapable of repentence. The strong universalistic stance that everyone will ultimately be saved is obviously a much bigger claim. (Though... I do find it theologically attractive in an intimidatingly maximalistic kind of way.)
Yes, it is attractive, and philosophically speaking, universalism offers what seems to be a pleasing finish to an otherwise painful set of future possibilities. But, with that said, I'm still wrestling with its coherence as an entity within the entire corpus of the Bible.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Silmarien.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
My question is, if Gods love and patience is unending, is that to say that He would reach out to people, even after death? Or is it then too late to be loved?
If you mean, is the one who created time, limited by time???? I'm voting with Martin Luther.

'The After Life' by Henry Buckle pg 168
Luther writing to Hansen Von Rechenberg 1522.

“God forbid that I should limit the time of acquiring faith to the present life. In the depth of the Divine mercy there may be opportunity to win it in the future."
Martin Luther.

I hope you caught the play on words above; Not 'The Afterlife', but 'The After Life'! :idea:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajni
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I guess I'm approaching this as a thought experiment, Silmarien. And I'm thinking ...universalism seems to imply to me that God's Being would somehow be insufficient to uphold our happiness in eternity, as if our pains and sorrows--any pains and sorrows we might take with us into the afterlife--would somehow be impregnable or undisplaceable by the Glory of Christ.

Well, I would say that there's a difference between a glory that restores and a glory that displaces and erases. If it's the latter, then I get to make the argument that is so often used against universalism: if what happens here ultimately doesn't matter, what's the point?

Yes, it is attractive, and philosophically speaking, universalism offers what seems to be a pleasing finish to an otherwise painful set of future possibilities. But, with that said, I'm still wrestling with its coherence as an entity within the entire corpus of the Bible.

It's not really about future possibilities for me. It's very much about the present and the way Christianity answers the Problem of Evil. I think less in terms of universalism and more in terms of the Christus Victor theory of atonement and the claim that all the forces of entropy in the universe have been knocked out of play and are just in their death throes. Which... you know, enormously huge claim from my perspective. ^_^

It does make sense to me that people would have the choice to live in the new world or stay with the old one, but to shove the focus back on God's sovereignty and say that "one day, all shall bow" is crazy powerful theology. It's kind of like Calvinism in terms of its absolutism--what God wants, God will get, but apocatastasis says he wants everything. (This is way beyond what I'm willing to defend, but it does have its appeal.)
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,143
9,951
The Void!
✟1,130,612.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, I would say that there's a difference between a glory that restores and a glory that displaces and erases. If it's the latter, then I get to make the argument that is so often used against universalism: if what happens here ultimately doesn't matter, what's the point?
yeah. That's what I tend to feel about this. Otherwise, I guess it's time to inform my wife that "hey honey, you know all those sins I used to do...well, I just learned from some universalists on CF that they really don't matter in the long run, so I won't be trying any longer to abstain. And since it's okay with God, shouldn't it be ok with you?" ;) I assume she'll be ok with that, too....................in the long run.

It's not really about future possibilities for me. It's very much about the present and the way Christianity answers the Problem of Evil. I think less in terms of universalism and more in terms of the Christus Victor theory of atonement and the claim that all the forces of entropy in the universe have been knocked out of play and are just in their death throes. Which... you know, enormously huge claim from my perspective. ^_^

It does make sense to me that people would have the choice to live in the new world or stay with the old one, but to shove the focus back on God's sovereignty and say that "one day, all shall bow" is crazy powerful theology. It's kind of like Calvinism in terms of its absolutism--what God wants, God will get, but apocatastasis says he wants everything. (This is way beyond what I'm willing to defend, but it does have its appeal.)

You have some interesting directions of thought here, Silmarien. I think I can lean toward agreeing with your claim that "forces of entropy have been knocked out" by Christ. That's an encouraging way to look at it. And even if I may not agree in minor specifics, I respect your reasoning, and your amiable disposition as you express your philosophical outlook. :cool: Much appreciated, really.

Thanks,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I see nothing there that's incompatible with a universalist position either. I don't know enough about John Donne to know what his exact stance on the issue was, but this is the type of thinking that can certainly blossom into a fullblown universalism.
That's a distinct problem with Universalism, it tends to not be incompatible with anything as it always then grasps at the idea of 'restoration' of what it does not like and reinterprets everything else in light of itself. When I read Donne, I can't help see his emphasis on personal salvation in a community of the Church. This devotion does not just say 'all men are brothers' as it is so often portrayed, but clearly says that 'all men help each other to God to some extent'. It does not say all will thus be saved, so my point was not that it is incompatible with Universalism, but that a Universalist reading is not the point of these lines in Donne.

Not at all! The only thing universalism does is discard retributive justice in favor of restorative justice; any theologically sound version isn't going to downplay sin at all. If anything, I would say that moral struggle is ultimately legitimized, since in a universalist framework it will necessarily have value in and of itself and can't be reduced to a simple means of escaping punishment.

To what degree it's biblical is another question entirely, and one I'm not qualified to weigh in on one way or the other. (Though as far as I'm concerned, that goes for anyone who doesn't speak Koine Greek!)
I think the problem with Universalist thinking is that it sets itself up in opposition to bogeymen. It says as you have now also said, that previous systems equate to escaping punishment. I do not think any form of Atonement is so clear cut, nor that they are not all able to be concurrently operable, be it Christus Victor, Scapegoat, Poenal Substitution or what have you. In Universalism however, it seems as if virtues like faith, temperance, charity, hope, fortitude etc. are minimised into irrelevancy by the simple fact that they no longer bear all. They are not the operative element anymore, how God's grace helps man to become what he should have been. The world is a crucible working on our inner soul, forging in my opinion a son of God or of Perdition. The problem of evil only makes sense to me in this light and a universalist who redeems those who had never been forged anew, in essence seems to negate the purpose of our moral existence, to some extent.

I think that the sort of argument David Bentley Hart is making would probably be stronger from a Trinitarian perspective than something mired in Eastern philosophy. (I suspect that he's done so elsewhere, but I haven't gotten around to reading his heavier theological work yet.) If the argument were framed less in terms of philosophy of mind and more in terms of theology and the importance of relationships, it would work better. If someone who is ultimately unsaved had a positive effect on you, is that suddenly the dross that you're not going to be appropriating? I really don't think there's enough black and white in the realm of interpersonal relationships to make sorting them out a simple task, so I still see it as difficult to keep from losing significant portions of your identity.

I should say that I definitely believe in a more concrete, platonic "self" as well. My concern is simply continuity between what we are and what we are to become--restoring what is actually broken is one thing, but if you start tearing out anything that has roots in anyone who was ultimately tossed aside, I do wonder if there's enough continuity left to refer to what emerges from that process as "salvation" from the human perspective.
I think you misunderstand me a little. Nothing is 'torn out' from its roots as our 'selves' are superficial constructs. The inner being is seldom met in other men. We meet their humour or character, their façade, their Superego, their ideas. With this we clothe our own inner being, but true congress with the actual Self of another would be rare indeed, if not found only in closest friends, spouses and family. If such a 'inner being' is truly depraved, then why would we assume any element from it? Such an element may only be an encumbrance, something that needs to be purified away. Sin begets Sin. Even things like temperance can become a vice if taken too far into dullness or thrift into niggardliness. I think that worthwhile well-balanced elements of Self are unlikely to arise from non-pure sources, so either they are 'absorbed' by nature of God's will or are remade such by Him, and thus shorn from their unholy origins.

I don't think there is much continuity between our sinful depraved selves and what God wishes for us. CS Lewis has a wonderful simile of us being a nice cottage which Jesus then converts into a grand palace against our wills. We must abandon ourselves to find ourselves, and often we only really become a Self once we let go of the petty idea of 'self' that we cling to.

I should point out that I don't think these particular situations are really a problem for the form of universalism that simply suggests that the gates of hell are locked from the inside and that nobody is technically incapable of repentence. The strong universalistic stance that everyone will ultimately be saved is obviously a much bigger claim. (Though... I do find it theologically attractive in an intimidatingly maximalistic kind of way.)
I agree. I don't see the former as Universalism though. The "Gates locked from the inside" sounds like a line lifted from Lewis, who is often mistakenly called a Universalist when he clearly was not. Humanity condemns itself in my opinion, not God. We bar the gates ourselves. I just happen to think at some point that self-condemnation becomes irreversible - not absolutely so, but certainly not without divine intervention and the further you move from God, the harder this becomes. We would be approaching areas where ability to return to God tends to infinitesimal degrees and thus the person has functionally condemned himself completely.

I agree with 2PhiloVoid, you have a wonderfully pleasant manner of debating these issues that I highly enjoy.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I do. The part about "everything that happens to anyone touches me also" (community....God's love binding us all back together).....and affliction maturing us......even purifying us (that's how I read "made fit for God by that affliction")....all appears to me to be describing universal reconciliation.....an eventual restoration of all.

That's what I used to think, too. That's not the sort of universal reconciliation I believe in, though. This is what I'm inclined to believe (what Gregory of Nyssa described):

>>>In the Great Catechism, Gregory suggests that while every human will be resurrected, salvation will only be accorded to the baptised, although he also states that others driven by their passions can be saved after being purified by fire.[56] While he believes that there will be no more evil in the hereafter, it is arguable that this does not preclude a belief that God might justly damn sinners for eternity.[57] Thus, the main difference between Gregory's conception of ἀποκατάστασις and that of Origen would be that Gregory believes that mankind will be collectively returned to sinlessness, whereas Origen believes that personal salvation will be universal.[57] This interpretation of Gregory has been criticized recently, however.[58]Indeed, this interpretation is explicitly contradicted in the "Great Catechism" itself, for at the end of chapter XXXV Gregory declares that those who have not been purified by water through baptism will be purified by fire in the end, so that "their nature may be restored pure again to God".[59] Furthermore, in the next chapter (ch. XXXVI), Gregory says that those who are purified from evil will be admitted into the "heavenly company".[60]

Attempting to reconcile these disparate positions, Eastern Orthodox theologian Dr. Mario Baghos notes that "when taken at face value the saint seems to be contradicting himself in these passages; on the one hand he asserted the salvation of all and the complete eradication of evil, and, on the other, that the fire needed to purge evil is ‘sleepless’, i.e. everlasting. The only solution to this inconsistency is to view any allusion to universal salvation in St Gregory as an expression of God’s intention for humanity, which is in fact attested to when his holy sister states that God has “one goal […] some straightway even in this life purified from evil, others healed hereafter through fire for the appropriate length of time.” That we can choose either to accept or ignore this purification is confirmed by the saint’s many exhortations that we freely undertake the virtuous path."[61] Dr. Ilaria Ramelli has made the observation that for Gregory free will was compatible with universal salvation, since every person would eventually accept the good having gone through purification.[58] Gregory of Nyssa - Wikipedia
images




Universal reconciliation has not been considered heretical or else many of the saints wouldn't be considered saints any longer.....would they?

As far as I know....Origen's version (with the idea of pre-existent souls) is the only form of universalism that's been deemed heretical in the Orthodox church.
I don't think the point of this Meditation is Universalism. This is clearly not what Donne meant. I did not say it was incompatible with it. It can be so construed, but so can frankly anything, as Universalism reinterprets even lines such as "thrown into the lake of fire" and "second death" into temporary states as well.

I am not knowledgeable enough on the Universalism of certain early Christians to comment much here. I do know that I myself do not find it Scriptural nor have seen it as a very useful doctrine in my own relationship to God. Traditional Christianity has anyway not affirmed it as such, and many of those quoted in its support I do not think hold this view when I read what they wrote.
@ClementofA says Augustine did, but I did not glean anything of this nature when I read City of God. Similarly the claim of Universalism sometimes levelled at CS Lewis also makes no sense, and I am quite an aficionado of his. I see many opportunities given for repentance, but no reason to think all will or even can be saved - Jesus said to wash the dust from your feet afterall. If Universalism is true, so be it. I am not lessened by it one iota if it is, but I see no reason to affirm it at all to be the case. I fail to see how the claim or promise of Christianity rests on this issue as many seem to hyperbolically claim. I must admit that it is tempting and this version you have ascribed here to Gregory of Nyssa is interesting, though.

I am however but a man, and may of course be quite mistaken here, but I doubt my opinion matters in the long run.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
yeah. That's what I tend to feel about this. Otherwise, I guess it's time to inform my wife that "hey honey, you know all those sins I used to do...well, I just learned from some universalists on CF that they really don't matter in the long run, so I won't be trying any longer to abstain. And since it's okay with God, shouldn't it be ok with you?" ;) I assume she'll be ok with that, too....................in the long run.

Well, to get completely biblical about it, it wasn't the universalists who first stated that it doesn't matter what time of day you start working in the vineyard, the pay is ultimately the same. Does this mean that you should wait until the last possible moment to do whatever you want and then turn around and grab the reward at the end? So I really feel like that argument against universalism flies in the face of Matthew 20.

To me, arguing that universalism means that sin doesn't matter is like saying, "Good news, everyone! Dieting and exercise exist, so why take care of yourself today when you can put yourself through hell later trying to get back into shape?" I suppose it depends upon your anthropology of sin, though.

I think the problem with Universalist thinking is that it sets itself up in opposition to bogeymen. It says as you have now also said, that previous systems equate to escaping punishment.

I don't think that all non-universalistic theories equate to escaping punishment, but there is a tendency to reduce them to that. The problem may be bogeymen on both sides, though--I'm not sure to what extent opponents of universalism are thinking about the more theologically sound versions. Gregory of Nyssa has come up a couple times recently, and as far as more recent theology goes, I've heard very good things about Von Balthasar. Haven't read him myself yet, though.

There's such a sense of, "That is not how this works. That is not what we said at all" on the universalist side in these types of arguments that I think the problem is in part miscommunication.

I don't think there is much continuity between our sinful depraved selves and what God wishes for us. CS Lewis has a wonderful simile of us being a nice cottage which Jesus then converts into a grand palace against our wills. We must abandon ourselves to find ourselves, and often we only really become a Self once we let go of the petty idea of 'self' that we cling to.

Yes, it has occurred to me that there's actually a way to shove universalism and annihilationism together and theorize that God is going to get those true "selves" eventually, and how much survives of what you once were depends upon how much you were able to embrace what you were supposed to be. I mean, people do change quite a bit during their lives, but if you're headed in the wrong direction entirely, maybe that thin thread of continuity finally snaps entirely if everything you had made of yourself eventually has to get burned away.

I'm not sure how I feel about this particular universalistic thought experiment, haha.

I agree. I don't see the former as Universalism though. The "Gates locked from the inside" sounds like a line lifted from Lewis, who is often mistakenly called a Universalist when he clearly was not. Humanity condemns itself in my opinion, not God. We bar the gates ourselves. I just happen to think at some point that self-condemnation becomes irreversible - not absolutely so, but certainly not without divine intervention and the further you move from God, the harder this becomes. We would be approaching areas where ability to return to God tends to infinitesimal degrees and thus the person has functionally condemned himself completely.

Yeah, it is straight out of C.S. Lewis. There are a couple of non-universalist positions I'm sympathetic to, and his is one of them. It is the sort of stance where it becomes a little bit strange to rule universalism out entirely, though--I'd say that it makes alternatives morally defensible, but it doesn't make them theologically necessary, strictly speaking.

I actually agree with your position. The big question is just whether the default should be in favor or against the sort of divine intervention that would be required in many situations. I find it a bit disturbing when people insist on slamming that door shut and screaming, "Impossible!" I think there's a tendency to view this as a zero-sum game, which is pretty much the opposite of good theology.

I agree with 2PhiloVoid, you have a wonderfully pleasant manner of debating these issues that I highly enjoy.

Nah, you guys are nice. It's very hard to push me so far that I snap and start screaming "heretic", but it's been known to happen from time to time. ^_^
 
Upvote 0