According to Anglicanism, is Universalism heretical?

[truthseeker32]

Hello everyone,

Does the Anglican communion have an official stance on universal reconciliation?

 

[PaladinValer]

Given our use of the lectionary and our liturgy, we certainly disagree with it. As it goes contrary to them, then we can say we consider such theology unorthodox at least.

 

[zaida]

Although its probably fair to say there are Anglicans who consider themselves Universalists - there are universalists in every denomination, it seems.

 

[FireDragon76]

Hello everyone,

Does the Anglican communion have an official stance on universal reconciliation?

No.

A qualified "universalism" is an opinion of Church Fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nanzianzus, and Isaac of Syria.

 

[Albion]

Hello everyone,

Does the Anglican communion have an official stance on universal reconciliation?

Probably not, but it might depend on how one defines those terms. There is Article XVIII of the Articles of Religion that is entitled "Of obtaining Salvation only by the Name of Christ" and describes those who are outside of that framework as "accursed."

It may be, however, that some of the other Anglican churches do have an explicit rejection of Universalism.

 

[Sean611]

I think it is the hope of all of us that everybody is reconciled to God and that hell is an empty place. However, my problem with universalism is that is claims to know for a fact that we are all reconciled and that hell is empty. To me, it is impossible to know who gets saved for sure and who (if any) do not. However, if we hold to the idea that we are given freedom and free will by God, then we must assume that it is possible to reject God's grace throughout one's entire existence. For that reason, it is impossible to extinguish the fires of hell.

Father Barron, Catholic apologist, sums it up nicely in this video:

Fr. Barron comments on Is Hell Crowded or Empty? - YouTube

 

[Albion]

I think it is the hope of all of us that everybody is reconciled to God and that hell is an empty place. However, my problem with universalism is that is claims to know for a fact that we are all reconciled and that hell is empty.

That's right...and worth stating here. To hope that all will be reconciled to God has been considered acceptable in the unreformed churches, but not the declaration that it absolutely will happen. That of course doesn't answer the question about Anglicanism having an official stance one way or the other.

 

[Sean611]

That's right...and worth stating here. To hope that all will be reconciled to God has been considered acceptable in the unreformed churches, but not the declaration that it absolutely will happen. That of course doesn't answer the question about Anglicanism having an official stance one way or the other.

Indeed and I got off topic a little with my post. As far as an Anglican position, I don't really know of any.

 

[mark46]

Yes, the key is understanding the doctrine of Hope.

We hope that when Judgement Day comes for us that we will have not thrown away our gift. We hope that Jesus will have Mercy on us. This is a proper view. However, this individualism is part of the US ethos. More generally, we have these same hopes for all in our family, our community and indeed for all mankind. Yes, we can hope that hell is empty. What is the alternative? Should we judge to know the Mercy and Sovereignty of God? Do we know who should be saved and who shouldn't? Did Jesus come for all or not?

I think it is the hope of all of us that everybody is reconciled to God and that hell is an empty place. However, my problem with universalism is that is claims to know for a fact that we are all reconciled and that hell is empty. To me, it is impossible to know who gets saved for sure and who (if any) do not. However, if we hold to the idea that we are given freedom and free will by God, then we must assume that it is possible to reject God's grace throughout one's entire existence. For that reason, it is impossible to extinguish the fires of hell.

Father Barron, Catholic apologist, sums it up nicely in this video:

Fr. Barron comments on Is Hell Crowded or Empty? - YouTube

 

[truthseeker32]

I am having a similar discussion over in TAW, and I thought I would bring my questions here as well:

1. As you understand it, what is free will?

2. Under your definition of free will, is it actually possible to freely choose Hell?

I ask because I am at a point in my understanding where the idea of freely choosing Hell doesn't make any sense to me. It seems that anytime a human being chooses to experience pain and suffering it is for a worthy end (which doesn't apply to Hell), or because they are mentally ill. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Sean611]

I am having a similar discussion over in TAW, and I thought I would bring my questions here as well:

1. As you understand it, what is free will?

This is a tough one and it has been at the center of Christian debate for hundreds of years. On the one extreme, you have a hyper Calvinism, in which you are either predestined to heaven or hell and you have no real free will in the matter as it has already been decided by God. On the other hand, you have extreme armenianism, in which you have complete free will in deciding to accept or reject God's gift of salvation. In essense, it is you who save you and God has little to do with it. Personally, I find both extemes to be problematic. For me, I believe that we do have the ability to freely accept or reject God's saving grace. That being said, I think that God has an active role in the process and in that saving grace through his son Jesus Christ. Basically, I believe that it's God who does the saving, I just decide to accept it.

2. Under your definition of free will, is it actually possible to freely choose Hell?

Like Fr Barron, I believe that the door of hell is locked from the inside. It is our choice to put ourselves in hell by rejecting God's gift of salvation. Banishing ourselves to hell is something we do to ourselves by rejecting God's grace and presence, not something he does to us.

I ask because I am at a point in my understanding where the idea of freely choosing Hell doesn't make any sense to me. It seems that anytime a human being chooses to experience pain and suffering it is for a worthy end (which doesn't apply to Hell), or because they are mentally ill. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

By rejecting God's gift of salvation, we choose hell ourselves IMO. Therefore, it is not something God does to us. Since we don't know who gets saved and who doesn't, we have no idea if hell is crowded or empty or somwhere in between. That said, personally, I think that it's possible for a person to reject God's gift of salvation, therefore I am unable to extinguish the fires of hell, so to speak.

 

[MKJ]

I do not think it is really right to characterize people choosing Hell.

Who chooses Hell, really - what we choose is something else over God.

The logical consequence of that may be Hell, but the other thing is what we are choosing.

 

[truthseeker32]

By rejecting God's gift of salvation, we choose hell ourselves IMO. Therefore, it is not something God does to us.

I understand that much. My question is what state of mind is such an individual in, and can we truly say they are free?

 

[Sean611]

I do not think it is really right to characterize people choosing Hell.

Who chooses Hell, really - what we choose is something else over God.

The logical consequence of that may be Hell, but the other thing is what we are choosing.

Exactly and that is what I meant, although, I can see how some could read it the other way. By choosing something else over God or by rejecting God's gift, the consequence is hell. Therefore, it is us who is responsible for the consequences and not God.

Who chooses Hell? I'd say that there are plenty of people who are determined to do what they want and live for this life and don't care about the consequences.

 

[truthseeker32]

I do not think it is really right to characterize people choosing Hell.

Who chooses Hell, really - what we choose is something else over God.

The logical consequence of that may be Hell, but the other thing is what we are choosing.

If this is the case, it seems that Hell would only be justified if the individual understands the consequence of their decision. In fact, I think the action itself may be of secondary importance to how the actor sees his or her action. For example, the man who eats a 10 cent piece of candy without paying for it, convinced that it is wrong, may be more in the wrong than a person who fornicates believing it is perfectly okay to do so. I still wonder, however, if our wrong choices merit eternal suffering. I honestly think George MacDonald's view of Hell as a temporary state one stays in until they are purged makes the most sense since eternal suffering seems pointless.

 

[Sean611]

I honestly think George MacDonald's view of Hell as a temporary state one stays in until they are purged makes the most sense since eternal suffering seems pointless.

This sounds more like the doctrine of purgatory rather than hell.

 

[Albion]

This sounds more like the doctrine of purgatory rather than hell.

It would be similar, except that Purgatory is for a correction of lesser faults for those already assured of and deserving of salvation, whereas a temporary hell would mean even the worst of sinners would be put through rehab and then be good to go.

 

[truthseeker32]

It would be similar, except that Purgatory is for a correction of lesser faults for those already assured of and deserving of salvation, whereas a temporary hell would mean even the worst of sinners would be put through rehab and then be good to go.

Right. One person might be in purgatory fo 10 days, another 10 years, and another 10,000 years, but ultimately everyone would make it, as it were.

 

[ebia]

Hello everyone,

Does the Anglican communion have an official stance on universal reconciliation?

"Everyone will be saved"

Or

"All may be saved"

.?

 

[CAJ]

On the other hand, you have extreme armenianism, in which you have complete free will in deciding to accept or reject God's gift of salvation. In essense, it is you who save you and God has little to do with it.

I am as certain as I have ever been of anything that every single arminian I know would say this is absolutely incorrect.