Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Andrewn said:

In your experience, has Anglican teaching been more Calvinist or Arminian / Wesleyan?

TULIP Calvinism Compared to Wesleyan Perspectives

I know this question is outside the scope of the thread. But I find that different congregations may have different emphasis in this regard.

Click to expand...

I knew nothing about Calvanism and Wesleyanism other than the name and hadn't even heard of Arminanism before going this site. I still don't know anything about Wesleyanism so thanks for the link but I've learnt enough about Calvanism to find it totally contemptible.

My experience of Anglicanism within the Church of England has been Arminian in that it assumes the reality of our free will as well as God's sovereignty and sees no contradiction between the two. No church I've been to has been openly universalist but neither have any been opposed to it as a possibility. So, I'd say my experience has been a blend of Arminianism and hopeful Universalism.

But with a certain philosophical fuzziness thrown in at no extra cost. As a member of the Church of England I often forget what I'm supposed to believe in time because it's a very broad church, and I regard that as one of it's strengths.

C of E churches are constantly trying to reach out to the local community who by and large stay away and they're successful in some ways and less so in others. What I've found is that the concept of ECT keeps a lot of people away from the church as does the question of suffering and a perceived incompatibility between science and religion.

What have been the traditions of the churches you've attended? Are there any areas of belief where you diverge from your church?

Andrewn said:

I would not suggest teaching UR in public. But I may mention it as a possibility to a traumatized person.

Click to expand...

Keith deRose gives a thoughtful analysis of this dilemma and believes there are dangers on both sides. It's a long extract but it's quite nuanced and I'll only lose that if I tried to summarise it. The full article's here https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/ and it's probably the best introduction to Christian universalism I've read. (I may test you on it later to make sure you've read it.)

"Many have e-mailed to warn me of the dangers of believing and promoting universalism. Two closely related dangers have been stressed. Some focus on how important Christians will think it is to spread the gospel if they accept universalism, and warn that belief in universalism would undercut evangelism. Others focus on the potential detrimental effect of promoting universalism on potential Christians themselves, supposing many will think something along the lines of, “Well, I’ll be OK anyway, so why bother to accept Christ?”

I do not think that belief in universalism should have the above effects. Here it is important to note that universalism — at least the position I’ve been referring to by the term — does not imply that it is unimportant whether one accepts Christ in this life, or sooner rather than later. All that universalism per se rules out here is the “infinitely big stick”: that one will be eternally barred from heaven (and perhaps consigned to hell) if one fails to accept Christ in this life. As I’ve stressed, universalism itself does not rule out that there will be punishment for some after death. Indeed, it does not rule out that there will be a lot of punishment for some. So it’s not only consistent with the existence of sticks, but with very big — indeed, immensely huge — sticks, though of course universalists will disagree amongst themselves about the nature and size of whatever sticks there are. Universalism does rule out the infinitely big stick. But it would indeed be very sad if Christians believed that there is strong reason or motivation for accepting Christ in this life only if one faces an infinitely big stick if one fails to do so. Universalism also guarantees that all humans will eventually attain the tremendous carrot. But does the fact that things will eventually be OK for someone remove the motivation — for herself and for others — to improve her lot in the meantime? Those who believe they are going to heaven, whether they’re universalists or not, believe everything will eventually be OK for them, but few lose all interest in their well-being in the meantime. And those who believe that certain other people (say, loved ones) are destined for heaven don’t lose interest in promoting their well-being in the meantime. Why, then, should accepting that everyone will eventually be OK sap all motivation for promoting their well-being in the meantime — especially since it’s at least consistent with universalism that that “meantime” can be a very long time?

It’s also worth pointing out that though the universalist believes all will attain heaven, it’s consistent with universalism that what one’s heavenly existence is like may depend on one’s earthly life. Thus the universalist may hold (though perhaps some will not) that how one lives one’s earthly life — perhaps crucially including whether one accepts Christ in this life — will have eternal significance, even if it doesn’t determine whether one (eventually at least) attains heaven.

But even if I’m right that belief in universalism should not have the bad effects described above, I don’t doubt that belief in universalism will have such bad effects, at least on some. After all, some people claim that belief in universalism would have such a bad effect on themselves, and I’d be a fool to suppose I can judge better than them what the effect of the belief would be on them.

But those who press the potential dangers of belief in universalism seem to neglect the corresponding potential dangers of their own position. Indeed, many who press the concern about the detrimental effects of accepting universalism go on to explicitly state that there is no danger on the other side as part of their case for resisting the promotion of universalism.

But they are wrong. There are dangers on the other side. I have received many e-mails from those who have related that the doctrine of eternal hell was the biggest stumbling block to their accepting Christianity, and many others said that believing that doctrine interfered greatly with their ability to love God. Now, one doesn’t have to accept universalism to avoid the doctrine of eternal hell — one can accept some view on which those who don’t make it to heaven are (eventually or right away) annihilated. But, for many, universalism is the view that rings most true, and the version of Christianity they’d be most likely to accept.

Suppose for a minute that universalism is correct, and suppose that these people are right to think that there is no way that God would allow some people to be forever excluded. In that case, promoting the false view that God will allow such exclusion is doing great harm. Indeed, many universalists, myself included, believe that non-universalism is one of the most harmful falsehoods ever promoted in the Christian church.

There is danger on both sides. Either way, if one is wrong, one may be doing harm to people by advocating one’s false view. Indeed, either way, even if one is right, one can do some harm to others by advocating the truth one believes. (Even if universalism is true, my promoting that truth may cause some to lose their faith, and may thereby harm them. Likewise, if universalism is false, those who declare it false may thereby harm some people.) One possible response to these dangers, whichever side one is on, would be to remain silent on the issue. [But there is also grave danger in remaining silent if you could have spoken up, since your speaking up might have helped someone!8/6/2010] Another response is to present one’s thinking on the issue for others’ consideration. That is the path I have chosen — as have those who write to oppose me. If I have caused you think about the issue, to study the Bible (especially important here is reading not just the passages for and against universalism that have been presented, but also the material that surrounds them and gives them their context), and to prayerfully consider the issue, then I am happy, even if I haven’t convinced you of my position."

Saint Steven said:

What motivated the person to seek God? If it was out of fear, was that the wooing of the Spirit? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Me too.

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love."

1 John 4:18. New King James Version.

Interesting that this uses the word torment. I dread to think what mental gymnastics the ECT'ers need to perform to get out of that lol.