Anti-universalism hostility

[FineLinen]

Dear Gracia: Do you know what "not willingly" means?

"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who has subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

 

[Monksailor]

Just wondering. If universalists believe that all are or are going to be saved, then how do they handle one of many verses which say just the opposite in the Christian Bible like, "13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it," spoken by JESUS Himself? Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 7:13-14 - New International Version

 

[public hermit]

This is one of those areas where I am agnostic.

1. If God desires everyone to be saved and that none should perish, I certainly should have that same desire (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). What I don't understand is how God could set out to do something, want to do something, and then fail. Did God create to destroy? Did God gamble, take a risk, and then lose?

2. The idea that someone must make a conscious decision for Christ to be saved, and then those who don't are damned, strikes me as absurd. Consider Romans 10:9-13:

"because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’"

This is a favorite passage that is used for exclusion. The text states that those who believe and confess will be saved and not be put to shame. Some want to argue that it then follows that those who don't believe and confess won't be saved. But, the second assertion does not necessarily follow from the first. The only thing this passage asserts is that belief and confession is a guarantee of salvation. It does not go further and assert the exclusion of those who don't. The second assertion is not entailed in the first.

Imagine a concert hall. The owner sells tickets so that every ticket holder has a guarantee to enter the hall for the concert. Does that necessarily entail that if someone doesn't hold a ticket they will not get in? No. The owner of the hall might very well approach some who do not hold tickets and say to them, "This is my hall, you too may enter. I have your price covered."

The other problem with asserting that only those who believe and confess will be saved concerns who that necessarily excludes. It excludes virtually all of those in the Old Testament. Who in the OT believed and confessed what they did not know? And if you make an exception for them, then why them? What of children? What of those who have never been able to believe and confess? By default they are damned? Come on. What of those with cognitive impairments? Once you start making exceptions then we must ask, "What exactly makes salvation efficacious?" Is it consciously confessed faith in Christ, or God's grace given in Christ? If it's faith, then lots are excluded and simply believing seals the deal. If it's grace, then who are we to put a limit on God's grace?

3. Why must hell be eternal? Why not remedial? What is the purpose of hell? Is eternal punishment fitting for a just God who is Love? Or, does it make more sense that God reconciles all the good that God created, leaving behind the dross and all that was not his by the fire of his love? I don't think the scriptures are as clear on hell as some seem to think. I don't think the eternity of hell is as clear as some think.

Just some thoughts. My settled position is that salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. I don't know if all, some, or a few will be saved and I don't believe that I must make a determination one way or the other. I don't think the threat of hell is an effective tool for evangelism. If the love of God revealed through Christ is not compelling, then we are left with fear and fear will not make us love God. Fear may be the beginning of wisdom, but the end result of wisdom is love of God. I don't know if God will save all, but I am open to the possibility and certainly I pray for it. I guess we'll see.

 

[bling]

In this short video, David Bentley Hart suggests that the emotionally-driven objection of many Christians to universal salvation/ restorationism is motivated by a childish view that 'For me to win, someone has to lose'. This is a sin that we all suffer from time to time. But is God's grace not higher than that?

If we are all heaven bound why are we wasting time here on earth?

There appears to be an earthly objective which appears can only be fulfilled by mature adults while on earth.

This messed up world, tragedies of all kind, Christ having to go to the cross, hell, heaven, satan roaming around and man sinning seems to be the very best situation for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

What do you see as man’s earthly objective?

 

[Gregorikos]

This is one of those areas where I am agnostic.

1. If God desires everyone to be saved and that none should perish, I certainly should have that same desire (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). What I don't understand is how God could set out to do something, want to do something, and then fail. Did God create to destroy? Did God gamble, take a risk, and then lose?

Your point presupposes that God intended Universalism all along but failed to get it done. But that's begging the question. God could will for all to be saved, but only for those who meet his conditions to achieve it. In that case, he didn't fail.

2. The idea that someone must make a conscious decision for Christ to be saved, and then those who don't are damned, strikes me as absurd. Consider Romans 10:9-13:

"because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’"

This is a favorite passage that is used for exclusion. The text states that those who believe and confess will be saved and not be put to shame. Some want to argue that it then follows that those who don't believe and confess won't be saved. But, the second assertion does not necessarily follow from the first. The only thing this passage asserts is that belief and confession is a guarantee of salvation. It does not go further and assert the exclusion of those who don't. The second assertion is not entailed in the first.

If all will be saved, there is no point in preaching the Gospel at all. And the greater Biblical context clearly indicates that something is required for salvation. Consider Acts 11:14, told to "a devout man who feared God with all his household" (10:2)

To that man, an angel said, "‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved," Acts 11:13-14 (RSV)

3. Why must hell be eternal? Why not remedial? What is the purpose of hell? Is eternal punishment fitting for a just God who is Love? I don't think the scriptures are as clear on hell as some seem to think. I don't think the eternity of hell is as clear as some think.

Well if we go by what Jesus said, it's very clear. Here is just one example of quite a few.

Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; Matthew 25:41 (RSV) T

 

[renniks]

All the warnings about hell in the Bible are just there to keep people in line, God didn't really mean it I guess?

 

[HatGuy]

By universalism, everyone is saved with or without believing in Christ.

It's common for people to think that the "all roads lead to heaven" idea is "universalism", but actually what you're describing is "pluralism".

Christian universalism teaches that salvation is only in Christ, and hell is real, and that all will eventually believe in Christ. So all are saved by believing in Christ only. The difference is that all will eventually believe in Christ, and hell is a place of temporal punishment (no one knows how long that would be) that may facilitate that restoration process.

I come in defense of it because these details matter. I think in matters of debate, the more we know of the facts and the definitions, the more effective those debates will be.

 

[Der Alte]

Are there any texts in the OT where God, Himself, is speaking that clearly show "Universal Reconciliation?"
Are there any texts in the gospels where Jesus, Himself, is speaking that clearly show "Universal Reconciliation?"

 

[JacksBratt]

In this short video, David Bentley Hart suggests that the emotionally-driven objection of many Christians to universal salvation/ restorationism is motivated by a childish view that 'For me to win, someone has to lose'. This is a sin that we all suffer from time to time. But is God's grace not higher than that?

Sorry, Shrewd, but I don't believe in universal salvation. Not because I think that "for me to win, someone else must lose"...

The reason I believe is that, in the case of salvation, everyone could win... if they chose Christ.

There is no personal input into my salvation. There is no "winning" like winning a race or a contest.. so others must lose..

It's a free gift.

The reason that there is not "universal salvation" is because there is not "universal acceptance of Christ"

Those that reject Christ are held to be unrighteous and therefore cannot enter into His presence.

Nobody actually loses.. they choose not to win.

 

[public hermit]

Your point presupposes that God intended Universalism all along but failed to get it done.

It doesn't presuppose, it simply poses the question.

God could will for all to be saved, but only for those who meet his conditions to achieve it.

If God willed for all to be saved, but only those who meet the conditions are saved, then God's will does not obtain. That may very well be the case. Oddly enough, the way you just phrased that presupposed universalism and concluded that God failed to get it done.

But, these conditions are part of my question. What are the conditions? Consciously confessed faith? If those are the conditions than all of those persons I mentioned above will perish, e.g. OT folks, children, the cognitive impaired, those who never heard the gospel, etc. If God willed that all be saved, then God also guaranteed that many would not be. That's not consistent.

If all will be saved, there is no point in preaching the Gospel at all.

I am not convinced all will be saved. I am not convinced only confessing Christians will be saved. But more than anything, I am not convinced that eternal damnation is the gospel we preach. If hell is remedial, do we stop preaching salvation because it's not eternal? Is a hell of a million years something to look forward to?

But, I get it. What is salvation if we aren't being saved from something? Well, we are. We are being saved from condemnation before a just and righteous God, a condemnation which applies to all of us, without exception. The question is not "Are we being saved from something?" The question is, "Who will be saved." And my point is simply, "We don't know. But, we presume too much if we are certain it won't be all."

You seem to place the efficaciousness of salvation on faith in Christ. I place it on grace through Christ. Those who have faith in that grace will be saved. That I trust. But, I don't put limits on God's application of that grace that has been secured through Christ.

Well if we go by what Jesus said, it's very clear.

You know as well as I do that there are many passages for and against. You seem to think the scriptures are abundantly clear on the subject. I disagree, as I stated. As I said, I am agnostic concerning the amount of people who will eternally populate hell, if there be any. I don't declare universalism to be true or false, because I don't think it is as clear as you do. I don't condemn you for holding that there is a number that will be condemned forever. Do you condemn me?

 

[Jermayn]

In this short video, David Bentley Hart suggests that the emotionally-driven objection of many Christians to universal salvation/ restorationism is motivated by a childish view that 'For me to win, someone has to lose'. This is a sin that we all suffer from time to time. But is God's grace not higher than that?

Univeralism is basically self worship. It's people creating their own fake version of God that doesn't hurt their feelings by telling them there are consequences for living a life of sin.

 

[Gregorikos]

I am not convinced that eternal damnation is the gospel we preach.

Eternal damnation is definitely not the gospel we preach. The gospel is the "good news." Hell is the "bad news."

If hell is remedial, do we stop preaching salvation because it's not eternal? Is a hell of a million years something to look forward to?

No, but one has a tough time making a Scriptural case for remedial hell.

You seem to think the scriptures are abundantly clear on the subject.

I do.

I don't condemn you for holding that there is a number that will be condemned forever. Do you condemn me?

No. Belief in ECT is not a requirement for salvation that I can see in the Bible or the creeds.

 

[dms1972]

Basically I see universalism (that all will eventually be saved) as a private or personal belief or hope that some christians hold. When they start to try and teach it as a dogma that everyone should agree with they are wrong. How can it be held as a hope if it is made into a dogma that all will certainly get to heaven?

As to those who teach it, I suspect they may differ a bit from each other. Do they all say repentance is essential, or do they just talk about everyone going to heaven when they die?

What of the verses in the Bible about narrow is the way to life and few there be that find it, and the parable of the sheep and the goats?

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

There's nothing left to debate. It has been settled for over almost 1,500 years :

CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)


9.

If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, Let Him Be Anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and Wicked Doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.


.

 

[NW82]

If you're referring to the 5th Ecumenical Council, I think you'll find on close inspection that the condemnations against universalism were never confirmed by the Pope and many other bishops, and the devil's uxorious minion Justinian was the political force behind trying to make the condemnations stick. So may I caution you against blithely accepting the monstrous fable that UR was ever held to be heretical.

Whether the pope or anyone else confirmed is irrelevant. If it wasn't taught by Christ or the apostles, e.g. in the Bible, then it's inherently false.

 

[public hermit]

There's nothing left to debate. It has been settled for over almost 1,500 years :

CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)


9.

If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, Let Him Be Anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and Wicked Doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.


.

That's all good and fine, but I am certain God gets the last word. Question: Why wasn't Gregory of Nyssa included in this? Or, was he?

 

[Curtis.Hilliker]

You have to read Revelation and not take away from it, therefore I can’t agree with universalism.

 

[Josheb]

In this short video, David Bentley Hart suggests that the emotionally-driven objection of many Christians to universal salvation/ restorationism is motivated by a childish view that 'For me to win, someone has to lose'. This is a sin that we all suffer from time to time. But is God's grace not higher than that?

That argument is ad hominemic: their position can't be correct because they just want to be "winners." That ad hominem is built on a straw man because most Christians do not think and no Christian doctrine asserts the saved as "winners." It is by grace we are saved, and not of ourselves.... Furthermore, the conditionalist view of hell doesn't have that problem of people eternally writhing in agony, and conditionalism is increasingly within the mainstream of Christian thought. Thinkers as notable and disparate as John Stott and Clark Pinnock have articulated valid cases for that perspective.

 

[FineLinen]

Just wondering. If universalists believe that all are or are going to be saved, then how do they handle one of many verses which say just the opposite in the Christian Bible like, "13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it," spoken by JESUS Himself? Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 7:13-14 - New International Version

Dear Monk: Please welcome my friend, and one of those who grasp the Restitution of the all, John Gavazzoni.

"There's a fundamental seduction that leads us to desire a simple, clear, categorized: 'everything in its own' pigeonhole; proof text-established delineation between good and evil. The necessity for communion with God... well, that gets messy. If you have to start with communion with God, He leaves a lot of questions up in the air, leaving you with having to trust Him on the path to glory. He refuses to accept your demand to be provided with a this-is-good, this-is-evil map of the path. He insists that you follow Him, and that gets so messy, so confusing to the mind that wants instruction without communion. It is a narrow Way, but the gate to the Way is not straight, it's STRAIT, as in restrictive and confining, e.g., as in a strait jacket. And the Way is not straight.

It's very curvy, bumpy, up and down, and narrow. There are others walking on the Way with you, behind and in front, and their communion with the Lord is integral to your own, but the narrowness of the road is such that Jesus is shoulder-to-shoulder with you on your together-journey. As the old song goes: "On the Jericho road, there's room for just two; no more and no less, just Jesus and you." I know some might raise the objection that if I conceive of Jesus as WITH us, I am therefore deficient in the revelation that He is IN us. Not so, not so, not so. It is exactly this sort of consideration that calls for the teacher to make his contribution. Jesus, as the Life-giving Spirit, is WITH US, IN US. There is always the dimension of His "withness" involved, in that while He is in union with you, He remains Himself, and you remain yourself, both in union, which union has Him contributing all, you contributing nothing, but enjoying the all of His contribution."

Writings Of John Gavazzoni - The Christ Fountainhead

 

[FineLinen]

Death & destruction are not eternal.

"Jesus knew that John 3:16 was not the end of the story…that’s why He continued to John 3:17 and talked about the salvation of all mankind.

Jesus makes no attempt to use verse 16 to negate or qualify verse 17. He simply makes both statements side by side as if both are completely true. The reason He does this is that both are completely true.

We see this over and over in Scripture, especially in the writings of Paul – a statement about people who have faith now (maybe a warning or exhortation or encouragement about the benefits of taking part in the kingdom of God a.k.a. the next two ages of life on earth right next to a statement about how Christ accomplished the justification of all men. See Romans 3:23-24 and 5:18 and their contexts for example. This is no big deal; none of these statements negate, qualify (change), or contradict each other, because both concepts are 100% true. Some will be saved from death early and take part in the kingdom of God, and everyone else will be saved from death later.

To attempt to use some statements (about those who get saved early) to negate the others statements (about the eventual salvation of all) is to butcher the common sense rules of language and communication. We would never do this to each other in everyday communication; the only reason people try to do it to Jesus and Paul is because they cannot bring themselves to believe the plain statements about the eventual salvation of all mankind.

If I said to my kids, “Those of you who help me clean the yard today will get to go to a movie with me tomorrow, and next week I will take the rest of you to a movie,” I have made it very clear that all the kids will eventually go to the movies. My two statements do not contradict each other or negate each other in any way. This is the exact same thing Jesus does in John 3:16 and 17 – He makes two equally true statements. Yet “hell mindset” Christians try to make one statement negate the other in order to fit their preconceived inherited ideas." -Kenneth Larsen-

What about how the Bible says that those who do not believe will perish or be destroyed?

What Does it Mean to "Perish?"