Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians? Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine? We all sin at times so shouldn't we welcome the thought that God is not going to annihilate or eternally torment us if we don't “accept,” “trust,” “repent,” “believe,” well enough to appropriate the grace of God?

You would think so but it seems from the recent threads on Christian Universalism that this is not the case. Why is this?

Here are some of the reasons that have been expressed in the threads:

1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”

To me, anyone who thinks this must see following Jesus as a heavy burden, one that needs the reward of heaven to make it worth the hassle. But shouldn't following Jesus and having a good relationship with him here and now be its own reward?

It's also a misunderstanding of Christian Universalism to think it says that we don't have to receive the saving grace of Christ in order to be reconciled to God and to each other. It just says that if we don't manage to do this in this life there will be boundless opportunities to do so in the next one and that eventually every one will accept forgiveness and repent of their sins... ”that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth" (Phil 2:10)

2. "All my hard work at being a Christian has been undermined".
This is very much like 1. Shouldn't any work we do be done out of love for God, not for any personal eternal rewards?

3. ”If there is an 'us,' there has to be a 'them'"
This may be true about some things such as football: I support Manchester United so I hate Manchester City (I'm from the UK, apologies) but it needn't apply to matters of faith. If we are going to heaven when we die there doesn't have to be a group who go to hell.

These three reasons seem to have something in common and that's judgementalism. They're all essentially saying "Look, I'm a good Christian and my hard work and sacrifices has earned me membership into the very exclusive club of heaven and, sad to say it, but most other people haven't done anywhere nearly as enough as me and so, unfortunately, missed out on the opportunity." This makes you think of the work vs. faith debate ironically but, moving swiftly on from that, isn't it true that being judgemental is wrong and if that's the main reason behind our objection to Christian Universalism, shouldn't we consider that we might be misunderstanding it?

There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism but there are plenty of existing threads discussing that so, assuming anyone wants to respond!, I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism". For me, it's basically relief that God is a loving God and not a monster after all.

 

[Tom 1]

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians? Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine? We all sin at times so shouldn't we welcome the thought that God is not going to annihilate or eternally torment us if we don't “accept,” “trust,” “repent,” “believe,” well enough to appropriate the grace of God?

You would think so but it seems from the recent threads on Christian Universalism that this is not the case. Why is this?

Here are some of the reasons that have been expressed in the threads:

1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”

To me, anyone who thinks this must see following Jesus as a heavy burden, one that needs the reward of heaven to make it worth the hassle. But shouldn't following Jesus and having a good relationship with him here and now be its own reward?

It's also a misunderstanding of Christian Universalism to think it says that we don't have to receive the saving grace of Christ in order to be reconciled to God and to each other. It just says that if we don't manage to do this in this life there will be boundless opportunities to do so in the next one and that eventually every one will accept forgiveness and repent of their sins... ”that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth" (Phil 2:10)

2. "All my hard work at being a Christian has been undermined".
This is very much like 1. Shouldn't any work we do be done out of love for God, not for any personal eternal rewards?

3. ”If there is an 'us,' there has to be a 'them'"
This may be true about some things such as football: I support Manchester United so I hate Manchester City (I'm from the UK, apologies) but it needn't apply to matters of faith. If we are going to heaven when we die there doesn't have to be a group who go to hell.

These three reasons seem to have something in common and that's judgementalism. They're all essentially saying "Look, I'm a good Christian and my hard work and sacrifices has earned me membership into the very exclusive club of heaven and, sad to say it, but most other people haven't done anywhere nearly as enough as me and so, unfortunately, missed out on the opportunity." This makes you think of the work vs. faith debate ironically but, moving swiftly on from that, isn't it true that being judgemental is wrong and if that's the main reason behind our objection to Christian Universalism, shouldn't we consider that we might be misunderstanding it?

There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism but there are plenty of existing threads discussing that so, assuming anyone wants to respond!, I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism". For me, it's basically relief that God is a loving God and not a monster after all.

This parallels attitudes towards immigration. From the earliest days of mass settlement in the US some groups have been making every effort to prevent anyone else (or anyone not like them) from settling there also. I suppose it's a basic human instinct to want to grab all of the pie for yourself.

It may have been similar in the earlier history of the England, with the Danes, Britons, Romans, Angles, Saxons and Jutes all vying for dominance.

I don't know if you saw it but there is/was a popular meme of Jesus, apparently delivering the sermon on the mount, which adds a ladle of irony, with a caption reading something like 'heaven has an immigration policy too' or 'heaven has borders too'.

 

[Sabertooth]

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

The false hope that it grants.
It is a repeat of the FIRST lie,
“You will not surely die..." Genesis 3:4 NKJV

(Satan maintains a scorched-earth policy.

If he cannot avoid going to Hell,
he'll take as many as he can down with him.)​

 

[Abaxvahl]

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians? Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine? We all sin at times so shouldn't we welcome the thought that God is not going to annihilate or eternally torment us if we don't “accept,” “trust,” “repent,” “believe,” well enough to appropriate the grace of God?

You would think so but it seems from the recent threads on Christian Universalism that this is not the case. Why is this?

Here are some of the reasons that have been expressed in the threads:

1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”

To me, anyone who thinks this must see following Jesus as a heavy burden, one that needs the reward of heaven to make it worth the hassle. But shouldn't following Jesus and having a good relationship with him here and now be its own reward?

It's also a misunderstanding of Christian Universalism to think it says that we don't have to receive the saving grace of Christ in order to be reconciled to God and to each other. It just says that if we don't manage to do this in this life there will be boundless opportunities to do so in the next one and that eventually every one will accept forgiveness and repent of their sins... ”that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth" (Phil 2:10)

2. "All my hard work at being a Christian has been undermined".
This is very much like 1. Shouldn't any work we do be done out of love for God, not for any personal eternal rewards?

3. ”If there is an 'us,' there has to be a 'them'"
This may be true about some things such as football: I support Manchester United so I hate Manchester City (I'm from the UK, apologies) but it needn't apply to matters of faith. If we are going to heaven when we die there doesn't have to be a group who go to hell.

These three reasons seem to have something in common and that's judgementalism. They're all essentially saying "Look, I'm a good Christian and my hard work and sacrifices has earned me membership into the very exclusive club of heaven and, sad to say it, but most other people haven't done anywhere nearly as enough as me and so, unfortunately, missed out on the opportunity." This makes you think of the work vs. faith debate ironically but, moving swiftly on from that, isn't it true that being judgemental is wrong and if that's the main reason behind our objection to Christian Universalism, shouldn't we consider that we might be misunderstanding it?

There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism but there are plenty of existing threads discussing that so, assuming anyone wants to respond!, I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism". For me, it's basically relief that God is a loving God and not a monster after all.

Those reactions aren't good and Jesus had a parable about that: Matthew 20:1-16.

My base reaction to Universalism is two things: (1) that it would be a fitting end to the Universe and the drama played out therein. It neatly explains how God conquers evil in the eschaton and so on. (2) That it attempts to reason into God's motivations and actions too much and has assumptions like Hell not being good, evil not being conquered despite eternal damnation, that God would be immoral for it, and possibly that it is not even Biblical considering the great weight of authorities against it.

Due to the former reactions sometimes I almost become a Universalist and due to the latter I have begun to entirely resign the question to God saying "it's in His hands alone, even if one person was saved He would still be perfect, and my duty is to look out for my own salvation, Kyrie eleison."

 

[Lazarus Short]

The false hope that it grants.
It is a repeat of the FIRST lie,
“You will not surely die..." Genesis 3:4 NKJV

(Satan maintains a scorched-earth policy.)

A statement that UR is "false hope" needs to be backed up with proof. A few key strokes do not suffice.

Obviously, we all surely die, and UR has never denied that. Die once...and then the Judgment. UR does deny that people will suffer either ECT or annihilation.

God will employ a "I make all things new" policy. God is Sovereign, not satan.

 

[Sabertooth]

A statement that UR is "false hope" needs to be backed up with proof.

The OP dismisses the opposing argument or verses before they can be offered.
They were taken into account in the development of this "theology."
Ultimately, the defense of this position relies on circular reasoning.

 

[returntosender]

It's not biblical.
Most uni's that I have had contact with seem to put themselves above God even attempting to change the word to suit their beliefs. Insisting their way of thinking is far better than God's.

 

[Lazarus Short]

The OP dismisses the opposing argument or verses before they can be offered.
They were taken into account in the development of this "theology."
Ultimately, the defense of this position relies on circular reasoning.

The OP wanted to address something other than proving the UR position. Can we keep things on that level?

As for "circular reasoning," again, you need to back up your assertion. As I said, a few keystrokes don't cut it. My own study, to decide for myself between damnationism, annihilationism and reconciliationism, took so many keystrokes that it grew into a 240+ page manuscript. I was won over to UR long before the Revelation, so I would like to see any circular reasoning.

 

[Lazarus Short]

It's not biblical.

Why? More to the point, why do you say it so readily. Further, which Bible? I have at least three versions in my library which do not mention "hell." So I can say that Hell and ECT are un-Biblical. Saying "not biblical" assumes that the Bible, the Church and theology are monolithic, but none of them are.

 

[LaSorcia]

1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”

2. "All my hard work at being a Christian has been undermined".

3. ”If there is an 'us,' there has to be a 'them'"

I've encountered the same viewpoints. Your responses are well put.
Go Man U!

 

[ozso]

ECT has been very deeply ingrained in most traditional Christian teaching. To the point where suggesting there isn't going to be everlasting conscious torment, isn't just viewed as heresy but tantamount to blasphemy.

 

[Lazarus Short]

1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”

Think it through: UR states that EVERYONE will be following Jesus in the end...so, there is still a point in following Him, yes? Many must view their following as a burden, and forget about rewards and the avoidance of corrective punishment.

 

[Lazarus Short]

2. "All my hard work at being a Christian has been undermined".

Faith, anyone? What about all the works we will surely be doing for the Lord and for our fellows in the long ages to come? Works will surely not be undermined when the workers are NOT few.

 

[Lazarus Short]

3. ”If there is an 'us,' there has to be a 'them'"

Simple dualism here. However, God and His creation are a hierarchy, not a heaven versus hell, with mankind as a contested prize between them. "Hell" is not even mentioned in the creation account, and the dualistic heaven versus hell, God versus Satan thing puts the adversary on an equal footing with God, a position that makes UR look like green grass and yellow balloons.

 

[ozso]

What was the point in following Moses then? He never said anything about eternal life.

Hmm said: ↑
1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”

 

[spiritfilledjm]

It sounds good...it's just not biblical at all, therefore, a minister of the Bible is obligated to speak against it and warn others.

 

[Andrewn]

There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism but there are plenty of existing threads discussing that so, assuming anyone wants to respond!, I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism". For me, it's basically relief that God is a loving God and not a monster after all.

I agree with everything you said except that I think most people would take the word "universalism" to mean that everyone, or most people, will go to heaven immediately after death. And this is, indeed, what Unitarian Universalists teach. I know that is not what you mean by "Christian" universalism. To make the distinction, we should probably translate "apocatastasis" into "Christian restoration" rather than "Christian universalism."

 

[ozso]

It sounds good...it's just not biblical at all, therefore, a minister of the Bible is obligated to speak against it and warn others.

I've read too much scripture presented by universalists to say it's not Biblical at all. To me it's more like it's not the way the Bible is traditionally taught.

 

[Lazarus Short]

It sounds good...it's just not biblical at all, therefore, a minister of the Bible is obligated to speak against it and warn others.

I cannot stress this enough: Which Bible?

In my Ferrar Fenton version, my Young's Literal version and "The Scriptures" version, it sounds VERY good.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

.