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

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
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.
Hopefully she'll have the insight to declare; "You mean the only reason you were loyal to me wasn't because of love, but because of fear of divorce." :doh:

Maybe you ought to really think hard about who you're serving. We're serving Him out of our love relationship with him, and for Him. YOU, sound like you just found out you have a fire insurance policy from a rotten salesman, that wasn't serving YOU. :(

When you guys realize you never did anything to deserve heaven, HE DID IT ALL, FOR ALL. And because HE gave you the opportunity to see that in this age, you can be saved from THIS WORLD to earn rewards for the NEXT WORLD. You have the opportunity to be "SAVED" to a greater degree than those who weren't "called, drawn, chosen, ordained to believe". The word "Especially" means 'to the greatest degree'.

1TI 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
Actually, what I was trying to imply without specifics was that, in my mind, to say that one is a Christian but turn around and begin to utterly eschew one's previous moral and relational commitments to Him and to family is kind of close to apostasy. And in this case, such as me hypothetically telling my wife that I'm going to nonchalantly reabsorb myself into a sinful lifestyle and then insist that she go along with it because I'll make it to heaven anyway, doesn't seem to be the 'biblical' agreement encoded into the idea of our (new) covenant with God through Christ. I could be wrong.

However, in my previous post, I was less concerned on the 'when' of our sinning in this life than I was with the quality of our commitments.

As to Matthew 20, the parable ends (v. 16) with Jesus saying in sum, "So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen." Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Jesus was alluding to a different point than what either you or I have been discussing in relation to universalism. (Or, it could just be that I don't know as much about universalism as you do, because..........in all seriousness, since I've never assumed that position had any legitimate significance, it's a topic that I have not really investigated as I have many others. I guess I'll have to check out some of your sources so I become more 'in the know,' ay?) :rolleyes:

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.
lol! Yes, you've definitely hit a nail on the head in reference to "getting back into shape." ;)


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.
Interesting info....:cool:

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 know the comment above was directed to Quid, but I'm chuckling along as well.


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.

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. ^_^
:cool:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hopefully she'll have the insight to declare; "You mean the only reason you were loyal to me wasn't because of love, but because of fear of divorce." :doh:

Maybe you ought to really think hard about who you're serving. We're serving Him out of our love relationship with him, and for Him. YOU, sound like you just found out you have a fire insurance policy was from a rotten salesman, that wasn't serving YOU. :(

When you guys realize you never did anything to deserve heaven, HE DID IT ALL, FOR ALL. And because HE gave you the opportunity to see that in this age, you can be saved from THIS WORLD to earn rewards for the NEXT WORLD. You have the opportunity to be "SAVED" to a greater degree than those who weren't "called, drawn, chosen, ordained to believe". The word "Especially" means 'to the greatest degree'.

1TI 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

...I'm not sure what you're trying to imply in your criticism here, Hillsage.
 
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
Actually, what I was trying to imply without specifics was that, in my mind, to say that one is a Christian but turn around and begin to utterly eschew one's previous moral and relational commitments to Him and to family is kind of close to apostasy. And in this case, such as me hypothetically telling my wife that I'm going to nonchalantly reabsorb myself into a sinful lifestyle and then insist that she go along with it because I'll make it to heaven anyway, doesn't seem to be the 'biblical' agreement encoded into the idea of our (new) covenant with God through Christ. I could be wrong.

However, in my previous post, I was less concerned on the 'when' of our sinning in this life than I was with the quality of our commitments.

Ahh, okay. No, we're definitely on the same page, then. I would just argue that we're also on the same page as any theologically interesting form of universal reconciliation. I've never seen it treated as a get out of jail free card--at least by anyone who knows what they're talking about. You mostly see it spring up in the Orthodox context, though, and they are deadly serious about sin. I find it really interesting how the brighter your eschatology is, the more severe your theology in general can become. Without tipping into the hinterlands of myopia, at least.

As to Matthew 20, the parable ends (v. 16) with Jesus saying in sum, "So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen." Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Jesus was alluding to a different point than what either you or I have been discussing in relation to universalism. (Or, it could just be that I don't know as much about universalism as you do, because..........in all seriousness, since I've never assumed that position had any legitimate significance, it's a topic that I have not really investigated as I have many others. I guess I'll have to check out some of your sources so I become more 'in the know,' ay?) :rolleyes:

Oh, I don't know all that much. I just know who's out there and the basic shape of it. Hopefully I'll get around to reading some of the primary sources myself at some point.

But that "many are called, but few are chosen" line is interesting. It shows up at least twice, since you get it at the end of the wedding feast parable as well in Matthew 22. That makes it look a bit like a rhetorical device to me, a favored turn of phrase. In both cases, you've got the context of people who accepted the invitation and then turned around and were ungrateful, but in Matthew 20 there's no judgment explicitly attached to it so I'm really not sure it's necessarily eschatological at all. I'm not a biblical scholar, though.

I'm not convinced it has much to say about universal reconciliation one way or the other. It's really looking like another condemnation of hypocrisy to me. Which... yeah, obviously a pretty big deal, but I think thematically distinct. Sometimes I think Christianity is more dangerous for Christians than non-Christians, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Biased unsupported quote from someone who has no stated qualifications in Hebrew or Greek or any relevant discipline.


"Ilaria Ramelli's anthology of translations of the ancient Greek "allegorists," the latest in a series of very substantial volumes of translations with commentary prepared by her or under her care, is surely the largest and most comprehensive such collection to date, in any language.

"...Furthermore, Ilaria Ramelli is a prolific and meticulous translator..."

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2008.06.27



Irrelevant! Now you are using unqualified translations i.e. Young's and Rotherham to criticize translations by Hebrew speaking Jews.

Hebrew speaking Jews, as in the ancestors of the eternal punishment believing Pharisees who wanted to murder Jesus?

No evidence has been provided against the Young or Rotherham translations of olam, aion, or aionios.

OTOH the KJV named after the gay KJ has been shown to be guilty of this re all three:

Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
9 "The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD..."

Your "qualified" men following the Douay & KJV traditions of men of "the church" of the Inquisitions, Crusades & dark ages have been caught in a deception (Jer.8:8-9):

Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context. What biased scholars after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
9 "The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD..."

"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."

http://concordant.org/expositions/the-eons/eon-indefinte-duration-part-three/



One or two examples of hyperbolic language does not prove anything.

Your own source, Vine, makes no mention of hyperbolic & states re aionios:

"describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom 16:25; 2Ti 1:9; Tts 1:2; or undefined because endless..."

Eternal - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

He applies endlessness to aionios in Mt.25:46 but gives no reason for doing so. Should we have blind faith in him like a pope?

Other learned sources disagree with Vine re Mt.25:46, e.g. Early Church Father universalists, modern scholars, etc.


Robert Young (1822-1888) was a Scottish editor and publisher who became proficient in several ancient languages through self-study.

[snip]

New Testament, 1872. Joseph Bryant Rotherham,


No evidence has been provided against their translations of olam, aion, or aionios.

Search: "NIV lousy translation" for some fun reading. LOL.

Bible Translations That Do Not Teach Eternal Torment
 
  • Like
Reactions: mkgal1
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hebrew speaking Jews, as in the ancestors of the eternal punishment believing Pharisees who wanted to murder Jesus?
Logical fallacy ad hominem and poisoning the well. That some Jews wanted to kill Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with their knowledge of Hebrew.
No evidence has been provided against the Young or Rotherham translations of olam, aion, or aionios.
My [post #1093] and [post #565] this thread.
OTOH the KJV named after the gay KJ has been shown to be guilty of this re all three:
Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
9 "The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD..."
Irrelevant. An empty accusation is not evidence of anything. Another out-of-context proof text which does not address anything about the KJV. Read Jermiah 8:10-13.
Your "qualified" men following the Douay & KJV traditions of men of "the church" of the Inquisitions, Crusades & dark ages have been caught in a deception (Jer.8:8-9):
More empty accusations.
Your own source, Vine, makes no mention of hyperbolic & states re aionios:
"describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom 16:25; 2Ti 1:9; Tts 1:2; or undefined because endless..."
Eternal - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
Irrelevant see my post 1093. 9:1
He applies endlessness to aionios in Mt.25:46 but gives no reason for doing so. Should we have blind faith in him like a pope?
I got it. A source is correct when it supports your assumptions/presuppositions and wrong when it proves your assumptions/presuppositions wrong.
Other learned sources disagree with Vine re Mt.25:46, e.g. Early Church Father universalists, modern scholars, etc.
Wrong! The ECF certainly don't prove that aion/aionios does not mean eternity/eternal. See my post #565.

No evidence has been provided against their translations of olam, aion, or aionios.
You have not provided any evidence that olam, aion, or aionios do not mean eternal/eternity.
Search: "NIV lousy translation" for some fun reading. LOL.
If you post a link it is guaranteed to be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private


Wrong! The ECF certainly don't prove that aion/aionios does not mean eternity/eternal. See my post #565.


"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."

"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.

I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.

It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.

Certainly, “there was a diversity of views in the early church on the scope of final salvation.” Tertullian, for instance, did not embrace apokatastasis. But my monograph is not on patristic eschatology or soteriology in general, but specifically on the doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others."

The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What implication were you making with the comment about your wife?

It was just a hypothetical scenario that I presented to Simarien to illustrate how silly I perceive some aspects of Universalism to be. I would never contemplate or really even say such a thing to my wife.

That was the implication of my comments about my wife. I assume you read what I wrote in connection to what I was responding to from Silmarien, right?

2PhiloVoid
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
It was just a hypothetical scenario that I presented to Simarien to illustrate how silly I perceive some aspects of Universalism to be. I would never contemplate or really even say such a thing to my wife.

That was the implication of my comments about my wife. I assume you read what I wrote in connection to what I was responding to from Silmarien, right?

2PhiloVoid
I did. And it was to point out from a UR perspective how such an attitude reveals ones true heart. The implication of your statement basically says the only reason you 'sin less' than you did before getting 'born again' is because you fear eternal hell. If that's true, then maybe you aren't even really saved.

What particular 'brand' of 'Christian' are you? Do you believe Once saved always saved, or do you believe Jesus only saved you the instant you first said yes, and then the first sin you committed 'that day' meant to hell forever again unless you do something to get it erased? Along with all the rest of your sins for the remainder of your "Christian life"?
 
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

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I did. And it was to point out from a UR perspective how such an attitude reveals ones true heart. The implication of your statement basically says the only reason you 'sin less' than you did before getting 'born again' is because you fear eternal hell. If that's true, then maybe you aren't even really saved.

What particular 'brand' of 'Christian' are you? Do you believe Once saved always saved, or do you believe Jesus only saved you the instant you first said yes, and then the first sin you committed 'that day' meant to hell forever again unless you do something to get it erased? Along with all the rest of your sins for the remainder of your "Christian life"?

What is this....attack 2PhiloVoid day? :rolleyes: Good grief!!! If you really want to know, I consider myself a Christian and a philosopher ... but I associate with the Christian Church which is a part of what is called the Restoration Movement. Even though I don't exactly hold to all of their distinctive beliefs, I do generally agree with their position that "Once Saved, Always Saved" is false. And I actually don't fear 'hell' either....

Honestly, your sudden attempt to jump on my case out of nowhere is not appreciated ... and your implication that I'm not a Christian isn't justified.

Thanks,
2PhiloVoid
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."
"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.

I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.
It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.
Certainly, “there was a diversity of views in the early church on the scope of final salvation.” Tertullian, for instance, did not embrace apokatastasis. But my monograph is not on patristic eschatology or soteriology in general, but specifically on the doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others."

The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)
Scholars directory, with list of publications:

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory
https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
I do not read or respond to long meaningless copy/pastes. What would be meaningful would be direct quotes from the primary sources and a proper citation such I provide here. I just happen to have an ECF module on my Bible program and can do a word search very quickly
Origen De Principiis.Book I. Chap. V
But since Paul says that certain things are visible and temporal, and others besides these invisible and eternal, we proceed to inquire how those things which are seen are temporal.
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
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?" ;)
That's not part of the framework that I agree with (and I doubt ANY universalist agrees with that).

The idea of universal reconciliation merely means that corruption is shed in the person's time---of their own free will.....to the point where they DESIRE to rid their life of it (just like the parable of the Prodigal Son...."he came to himself" and the father was waiting).

I believe we will ALL be restored to the point of original creation--where God said, "it is very good". Some may be quicker than others. There's no benefit in "waiting" though. Corruption is like cancer....why would one wish to knowingly hang on to it? That corruption keeps us from loving God and loving others well. There's huge joy in that. Why intentionally avoid that?



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.
You are misunderstanding universal reconciliation. All those virtues are very much in the forefront.....it's just not forced.....threatened into.....and by way of punishment. We WILL be "forged anew"....I very much believe that. I think the trouble you're having is that you seem to see our physical death as an expiration....an "end-of-opportunity" time (as we've all been taught at one point or another).....but I don't believe God is limited by our physical deaths.



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.
I don't believe universalism does that. It's a belief system....a framework. Belief systems don't "reinterpret" or like/not like anything. What you seem to be describing is competing paradigms, and a person trying to read through something where the author has one belief system and the reader has another.

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.
Maybe instead of declaring it as "not Scriptural" you'd be better served to keep an open mind and learn more?

I've mentioned it a few times in this thread (but I understand the thread is long and you've probably not read all the way through it)....but will repeat that Paul never mentioned hell one time in all his writing....hell isn't in Genesis....and John never wrote about it (none that I've seen). Does it make sense that, if "getting to heaven/avoiding hell" were the agenda, it's not the main theme we read about in the New Testament?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's not part of the framework that I agree with (and I doubt ANY universalist agrees with that).
Ok. That's fair. However, what do universalists recommend we do with our 'sins'? Is there an incentive for us to repent? And what do universalists do with all of the unrepentant Hitler type psychopaths of the world? Just wondering.

The idea of universal reconciliation merely means that corruption is shed in the person's time---of their own free will.....to the point where they DESIRE to rid their life of it (just like the parable of the Prodigal Son...."he came to himself" and the father was waiting).
That almost sounds like something akin to a Wesleyan second work of grace type meme, with the difference being that universalists seem to imply that God's grace and Spirit wakes everyone up during this lifetime, no matter who they are. Would that be correct? Or am I missing something?

I believe we will ALL be restored to the point of original creation--where God said, "it is very good". Some may be quicker than others. There's no benefit in "waiting" though. Corruption is like cancer....why would one wish to knowingly hang on to it? That corruption keeps us from loving God and loving others well. There's huge joy in that. Why intentionally avoid that?
Well, you believe that. But I'm not sure that Jesus or His Apostles did. Just sayin.'

2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
However, what do universalists recommend we do with our 'sins'? Is there an incentive for us to repent? And what do universalists do with all of the unrepentant Hitler type psychopaths of the world? Just wondering.
I think first it matters what a person believes "sin" even is. Someone mentioned earlier, "the anthropology of sin".

A person needs to also--somehow--ignore their own paradigm they see God, grace, justice, love, and unity through....and try to see things in a fresh way. There's a lot that needs to be torn down in order to see "with new eyes".

I believe words are VERY important in doing that (breaking down our assumptions and old paradigm we see through)....and I am NOT a writer, so I will just share from someone who is:

>>>CAC article:

The primary meaning of sin is to live outside “the garden,” or in the smoldering garbage dump of Gehenna, below and outside the city walls of Jerusalem—the standing Biblical images of hell or separation from God’s reality (Genesis 3:23-24, Isaiah 66:24, Mark 9:47-48). Sin is primarily living outside of union; it is a state of separation, when the part poses as the Whole. It’s the loss of any inner experience of who you are in God.

You can’t accomplish or work up to union with God, because you’ve already got it. “Before the world began you were chosen, chosen in Christ to live through love in his presence” (Ephesians 1:4). You cannot ever become worthy by yourself; you can only reconnect to your Infinite Source. The biblical revelation is about awakening, not accomplishing. It is about realization, not performance. You cannot get there, you can only be there. That foundational Being-in-God is for some reason too hard to believe, too good to be true. Only the humble can receive it and surrender to it, because it affirms much more about God than it does about us. And we foolishly believe it should be “all about me”!
~https://cac.org/the-souls-objective-union-with-god-2016-03-02/
That almost sounds like something akin to a Wesleyan second works of grace type meme, with the difference being that universalists seem to imply that God's grace wakes everyone up during this lifetime. Would that be correct? Or am I missing something?
I have no idea. I'm not at all familiar with the Wesleyan second works of grace.
Well, you believe that. But I'm not sure that Jesus or His Apostles did. Just sayin.'
.....and I'm not convinced He and the apostles didn't. It's up to us each to decide.....right?
 
Last edited:
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

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In answer to the question about "is there any incentive to repent of sin"? I think that goes right back to the OP....and, if one believes that the ultimate soul objective is to be in union with God--then of course there's incentive to repent. Sin clouds our view.....distorts reality....causes us to believe things that aren't true....so, even though God is "for us"..... I believe we can't *accept* His love fully when we're corrupted from sin. In the parable of the Prodigal......I don't believe the older son had "repented"....and because of that....was keeping himself from accepting the love and joy from his brother and father. That's what I believe disbelief and corruption does.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think first it matters what a person believes "sin" even is. Someone mentioned earlier, "the anthropology of sin".

A person needs to also--somehow--ignore their own paradigm they see God, grace, justice, love, and unity through....and try to see things in a fresh way. There's a lot that needs to be torn down in order to see "with new eyes".

I believe words are VERY important in doing that (breaking down our assumptions and old paradigm we see through)....and I am NOT a writer, so I will just share from someone who is:

>>>CAC article:

The primary meaning of sin is to live outside “the garden,” or in the smoldering garbage dump of Gehenna, below and outside the city walls of Jerusalem—the standing Biblical images of hell or separation from God’s reality (Genesis 3:23-24, Isaiah 66:24, Mark 9:47-48). Sin is primarily living outside of union; it is a state of separation, when the part poses as the Whole. It’s the loss of any inner experience of who you are in God.

You can’t accomplish or work up to union with God, because you’ve already got it. “Before the world began you were chosen, chosen in Christ to live through love in his presence” (Ephesians 1:4). You cannot ever become worthy by yourself; you can only reconnect to your Infinite Source. The biblical revelation is about awakening, not accomplishing. It is about realization, not performance. You cannot get there, you can only be there. That foundational Being-in-God is for some reason too hard to believe, too good to be true. Only the humble can receive it and surrender to it, because it affirms much more about God than it does about us. And we foolishly believe it should be “all about me”!
~https://cac.org/the-souls-objective-union-with-god-2016-03-02/
I appreciate that you have taken the time to mark out what you think 'sin' is anthropoligically, and in reading it over, I don't think we are in disagreement about the basic essence of what it is to have the grace of Christ applied to sins via a response of faith. However, in reading the Letter of Paul to the Ephesians, I believe his context implies that only those who in fact do place their faith in Christ, with a part of that faith also involving repentance, will then escape the Wrath of God. Those who don't have faith and repent of their sins will not escape the Wrath of God.

I have no idea. I'm not at all familiar with the Wesleyan second works of grace.

.....and I'm not convinced He and the apostles didn't. It's up to us each to decide.....right?
That's ok. You don't have to know what it is. All I'm saying here is that it seems the universalist's position implies that the Holy Spirit wakes up everyone sometime during this life, or that there is some kind of 'second chance' extended to everyone after death, which I don't seem to see an indication of in the Scriptures; the concept even of Purgatory notwithstanding. No, what I see in the Scriptures is that some people aren't going to escape God's Wrath and will be assigned to eternal destruction, in whatever shape or form that happens to be.


.....and I'm not convinced He and the apostles didn't. It's up to us each to decide.....right?
I wouldn't say it is up to each of us to decide completely on our own, at least not all by our lonesome. ;) In addition to the historic tradition(s) of the Church we might hear, we primarily need to take the entire counsel of God's Word into consideration on this issue, not just those parts we prefer to hear.

2PhiloVoid
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
What is this....attack 2PhiloVoid day? :rolleyes: Good grief!!! If you really want to know, I consider myself a Christian and a philosopher ... but I associate with the Christian Church which is a part of what is called the Restoration Movement. Even though I don't exactly hold to all of their distinctive beliefs, I do generally agree with their position that "Once Saved, Always Saved" is false. And I actually don't fear 'hell' either....
Thank you. I for one do believe in 'Once saved always saved', but that has nothing to do with whether or not one can still be a UR believer. We've all got our own mix in the UR belief system.

Honestly, your sudden attempt to jump on my case out of nowhere is not appreciated ... and your implication that I'm not a Christian isn't justified.
No more than I appreciated your slam of UR when you subsequently pretty much admit you're ignorant of it. So if you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

EDIT for clarification. Was in a hurry to meet cycle club.

Probably better to ask more questions and not come up with an analogy which reflected as poorly on you from my perspective, as our UR reflected upon us from your perspective.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I do not read or respond to long meaningless copy/pastes. What would be meaningful would be direct quotes from the primary sources and a proper citation such I provide here. I just happen to have an ECF module on my Bible program and can do a word search very quickly
Origen De Principiis.Book I. Chap. V
But since Paul says that certain things are visible and temporal, and others besides these invisible and eternal, we proceed to inquire how those things which are seen are temporal.

Been there, done that with you last year in dozens of posts.

Scripture is inspired.


Hebrews speaks of those who reject Christ as deserving a "sorer" punishment than death by Moses' law, i.e. stoning:

10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would suffer endless torments in fire, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is a sadist for all eternity.

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

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thank you. I for one do believe in 'Once saved always saved', but that has nothing to do with whether or not one can still be a UR believer. We've all got our own mix in the UR belief system.
Yeah? Maybe you ought to lay out a Taxonomy of the differences between you all ...

No more than I appreciated your slam of UR when you subsequently pretty much admit you're ignorant of it. So if you can't take it, then don't dish it out.
I'm not completely ignorant of it. I have read some things in the past on it, but I haven't done a comprehensive study of it.

Probably better to ask more questions and not come up with an analogy which reflected as poorly on you from my perspective as your UR reflected upon us.
Well, since you guys are so filled with grace and God's mercy, I'm sure you'll see fit to extend some of that to us more spiritually ignorant and disheveled wannabe Christians who have yet to realize the full universal promise of God .....................................right? :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0