Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

Universalism had some following too, but it was never the norm

We probably don't know for sure what the norm was in the early church but Augustine himself, a clear non-Universalist, said that universalism was once a popular doctrine so it had rather more support than just "some following". He says that there were "indeed very many" universalists in the early church, and also that they are not going counter to scripture:

It is quite in vain, then, that some–indeed very many–yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture—but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express literal truth.
— Augustine, Enchiridion, sec. 112.
​

and was rejected by the Church just like all the other aberrant theories.

I presume you are referring to the Fifth Ecumenical Council and, if so, the question of what was anathematised at the council is disputed. F. Nutcombe Oxenham, the 19th century Roman Catholic theologian and historian for example:

Let me say to any who may consider it an important matter to be assured whether Origen was, or was not condemned, by some ancient Synod, two things—(1) That if it could be ever so conclusively proved that “Origen was condemned” by the Fifth Council, this would afford no evidence whatever that he was condemned on account of his doctrine of restitution, since he held a great many other doctrines much more open to blame than this one. And then (2) Supposing Origen’s doctrine of restitution had been “by itself condemned,” this would be no condemnation of the doctrine of restitution, as now held.
​

Another example, when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation:

Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.
​

 

[Albion]

We probably don't know for sure what the norm was in the early church...

Yes, we do.

but Augustine himself, a clear non-Universalist, said that universalism was once a popular doctrine so it had rather more support than just "some following".

Even if you have Augustine right, you nor any of the rest of us can defend a doctrine like this on the basis of what ANY lone voice from the past had to say. What if I produced a different saint who said there was a Hell awaiting non-believers? Would you then feel compelled to say "That settles it?" I think not.

He says that there were "indeed very many" universalists in the early church

Well, yes, we know that there were some. You say you aren't wedded to the idea of Universalism, but you do seem to be embracing it simply because you like the idea, and that's evidenced by your attempt to pass off the slimmest of evidence--not proof, but evidence--as being definitive.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But they DO believe in non-existence after death the same as annihilationists. Citing what they don't believe in addition to that particular thing, doesn't negate the fact that atheism and annihilationim both teaches non-existence after death. It seems to me that atheists I know of would prefer annihilation over universalism. That said, I consider annihilation a possibility based on scripture. But it's certainly not free of criticism.

On a general level, I agree with you. All human positions on just about any subject are not free of criticism, and I don't think I'm exempt from any criticism. However, I will readily say that my approach to interpreting the Bible or handling philosophical ideas will be conditioned by my prior position on Hermeneutics and Epistemology. So, without taking us on a tangent, I'll just say that I don't think you are justified in extracting an overall notion of Nihilism that a number of atheists hold to, rip it out like a beating heart from a living body, and then hold it up saying "this is an idea [e.g. human heart]----and as you can see, it's just like YOURS!"

Yeah, that would be to commit an equivocation. I do see what you're trying to say, and you might need for me to affirm that I see that you're obviously an intelligent fellow believer along with me and many others here, but I think your analogy is certainly not free of criticism.

 

[Hmm]

Yes, we do.

What was it (the norm) then?

Well, yes, we know that there were some.

Again, not just some. There were "indeed very many" according to Augustine. And that's a very conservative estimate.

When Augustine described the Universalists as “indeed very many” (immo quam plurimi), what he meant is that they were a “vast majority”
Ilaria Ramelli, Christian Doctrine, 11.​

You say you aren't wedded to the idea of Universalism, but you do seem to be embracing it simply because you like the idea, and that's evidenced by your attempt to pass off the slimmest of evidence--not proof, but evidence--as being definitive.

Where have I ever said I'm not wedded to the idea of Universalism? I've also said in this thread that there's no such thing as proof either for or against universalism - we're not talking about maths or science. As to the slimmest of evidence, at least I've provided some. What's the evidence that supports what you say? Perhaps you can provide some in answer to my question at the top of this post.

 

[Albion]

Where have I ever said I'm not wedded to the idea of Universalism?

See posts #221 and #207.

As to the slimmest of evidence, at least I've provided some.

And the other side can point to much, much more, which has been done on these posts. You know this, I'm sure, because the way it gets pushed aside is to say it's not translated correctly, which is an acknowledgment of knowing what that material is.

 

[ozso]

On a general level, I agree with you. All human positions on just about any subject are not free of criticism, and I don't think I'm exempt from any criticism. However, I will readily say that my approach to interpreting the Bible or handling philosophical ideas will be conditioned by my prior position on Hermeneutics and Epistemology. So, without taking us on a tangent, I'll just say that I don't think you are justified in extracting an overall notion of Nihilism that a number of atheists hold to, rip it out like a beating heart from a living body, and then hold it up saying "this is a human heart----and as you can see, it's just like YOURS!"

Yeah, that would be to commit an equivocation. I do see what you're trying to say, and you might need for me to affirm that I see that you're obviously an intelligent fellow beliver along with me and many others here, but I think you anlalogy is certainly not free of criticism.

It's not an analogy. Atheists and annihilationist both believe in non-existence after death. Period end of story. I see no point in overcomplicating it.

 

[Hmm]

See posts #221 and #207.

See post #233:

I do [believe in Universalism] but I'm not defending it for that reason - my understanding of it is not perfect. So, to be clear, I'm defending the Universalist tradition that stretches back to the Apostolic age, not my imperfect understanding of it.

And the other side can point to much, much more, which has been done on these posts. You know this, I'm sure

No, I don't know what this "much, much more" is. I must have missed it but I'd happy to go back and read it if you could point it out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just wondered what you thought of it.


It's not an analogy. Atheists and annihilationist both believe in non-existence after death. Period end of story. I see no point in overcomplicating it.

Overcomplicating it? Do you know how often I've heard that slam-dunk type dismissal?

If I only had a dime for every instance ...

 

[Clare73]

I did not say it was.

Good for you. . .others have.

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[Clare73]

Based on the info I have, universalism was outright taught for the first four centuries. Which would mean it has a first century start date. What was the start date for purgatory?

Actual start date is not my point, 1274 as not being its start date is my point.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Your wish is my command:
https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

Thanks! I will take a look!

 

[Clare73]

I do, but I'm not defending it for that reason - my understanding of it is not perfect. So, to be clear, I'm defending the Universalist tradition that stretches back to the Apostolic age, not my imperfect understanding of it.

So your point then is simply that it exists?

And my point is there are other heresies that have existed longer, longevity being no proof of validity, only of age.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Your wish is my command:
https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

Haa! (laughing) right off the bat the first quoted scripture is this:

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

The writer, representing Universalists, decides that "all" means both believers and unbelievers. But this is in error. Yes, all in Adam die however all "in Christ" shall be made alive. These are two different groups. Believers and unbelievers. What is meant by being "in Christ"?

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

This is a VERY important distinction and not to be conflated in order to prove CU. One must be in the Body of Christ. This is being "in Christ." If this is how this blog starts out then the whole premise is on a foundation of error.

 

[Hmm]

What is meant by being "in Christ"?

The article explains what that means. It also specifically addresses the tired and discredited interpretation you recite below and details why it is incorrect.

One must be in the Body of Christ. This is being "in Christ."

 

[Albion]

It's not an analogy. Atheists and annihilationist both believe in non-existence after death. Period end of story. I see no point in overcomplicating it.

This is just a footnote, but on that last point, I don't believe most annihilationists do believe that there's no life after death.

As some have explained here, they think that the lake of fire awaits some of us, but that's what happens to them in the spirit world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have a question ...

... since Universalists seem to have 1 Corinthians 15:22 as a primary "go to verse," how do they reconcile their interpretation of this with what Paul writes previous to this in the vary same letter in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and then later to the same group of people in 2 Corinthians 5:10?

 

[Der Alte]

I have a question ...
... since Universalists seem to have 1 Corinthians 15:22 as a primary "go to verse," how do they reconcile their interpretation of this with what Paul writes previous to this in the vary same letter in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and then later to the same group of people in 2 Corinthians 5:10?

And...

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesian 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

 

[Hmm]

So your point then is simply that it exists?

And my point is there are other heresies that have existed longer, longevity being no proof of validity, only of age.

No, I'm just saying that I agree with what was probably the majority view, apokatastasis, meaning universal reconstitution/restitution, held by the early church. I agree, that's not proof of validity by certainly shows that it is not heretical. The church, for example, has never condemned Gregory of Nyssa's universalist views.