Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[public hermit]

Those who believe that Jesus meant what He said and said what He meant when He said "These shall go away into eternal punishment" see no ambiguity at all. And despite the accusations to the contrary I did not "grow up" in a "hell" teaching church. I became a Christian in my mid-20s when LBJ was POTUS. I questioned everything from day 1.

I sense you've thought this through and I don't begrudge the legitimacy of your journey, all the respect.

Another possibility are those who believe he meant it when saying no one gets out until every last "penny" is paid, and he says as much in a couple gospels, at that. IOW, a finite quantity. Look, I can't do tit for tat with verses. We have to have a discussion related to what is good and true and just within the context of the gospel as we understand it.

There's a lot of room for disagreement, but not so much for certainty; although, I definitely lean in one direction. That's the mystery to me: how did we allow ourselves to believe one outcome was necessary? In what world is God's future a necessary conclusion from our premises, be they scriptural or otherwise? The scriptures are full of examples of the people being surprised by what God ends up doing. ECT, as a pseudo doctrine, undercuts expectation, mystery, and wonder. We should at least, in my opinion, pull in the reins and allow for possibilities.

 

[Der Alte]

I sense you've thought this through and I don't begrudge the legitimacy of your journey, all the respect.
Another possibility are those who believe he meant it when saying no one gets out until every last "penny" is paid, and he says as much in a couple gospels, at that. IOW, a finite quantity. Look, I can't do tit for tat with verses. We have to have a discussion related to what is good and true and just within the context of the gospel as we understand it.
There's a lot of room for disagreement, but not so much for certainty; although, I definitely lean in one direction. That's the mystery to me: how did we allow ourselves to believe one outcome was necessary? In what world is God's future a necessary conclusion from our premises, be they scriptural or otherwise? The scriptures are full of examples of the people being surprised by what God ends up doing. ECT, as a pseudo doctrine, undercuts expectation, mystery, and wonder. We should at least, in my opinion, pull in the reins and allow for possibilities.

ECT is NOT a pseudo doctrine there was a belief in a fiery eternal punishment in Israel before and during the time of Jesus and they called it both Sheol/hades and Ge Hinnom\Gehenna. And Jesus said nothing to condemn that belief.

Matthew 5:21-26
21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.​

I don't see anywhere God sets bail for people He consigns to Gehenna/hades. Everything mentioned in the lesson happens in this world.

Psalms 49:7-9
7 No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them—
8 the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—
9 so that they should live on forever and not see decay.​

According to Jesus there is no return from the fire of hades.

Luke 16:26
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'​

​

 

[public hermit]

ECT is NOT a pseudo doctrine there was a belief in a fiery eternal punishment in Israel before and during the time of Jesus and they called it both Sheol/hades and Ge Hinnom\Gehenna. And Jesus said nothing to condemn that belief.

Matthew 5:21-26
21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.​

I don't see anywhere God sets bail for people He consigns to Gehenna/hades. Everything mentioned in the lesson happens in this world.

Psalms 49:7-9
7 No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them—
8 the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—
9 so that they should live on forever and not see decay.​

According to Jesus there is no return from the fire of hades.

Luke 16:26
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'​

​

I think you're missing the paradox. It seems to me, embrace the paradox and proper humility will follow.

I don't want to be mean, but that response...I swear I have seen it a number of times. You seem to have pre-ordered responses. But I'm thinking it must be the program your using, perhaps?

I'll give you the Matthew quotes as strong support, but you'll have to say more about the others.

Do you take hades as a literal time/space moment of actual flame? We should settle that because I will disagree. Unless you think eternal bodies of decay and suffering are commensurate with pure goodness and have their place in an everlasting space, we must consider other possibilities.

 

[ozso]

According to what I read here, Origen, and a lot of other ECF supposedly said a bunch of stuff they didn't say. Here is what Origen said about "aionios life" John 4:14
(59) He [Heracleon] is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power.[John 4:14]
(60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.
‘Origen. (19931. commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13-32. (1. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (vol. 89, pp. 67—69). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press

Cool, so Origen also taught once saved always saved.

 

[Der Alte]

I think you're missing the paradox. It seems to me, embrace the paradox and proper humility will follow.
I don't want to be mean, but that response...I swear I have seen it a number of times. You seem to have pre-ordered responses. But I'm thinking it must be the program your using, perhaps?
I'll give you the Matthew quotes as strong support, but you'll have to say more about the others.
Do you take hades as a literal time/space moment of actual flame? We should settle that because I will disagree. Unless you think eternal bodies of decay and suffering are commensurate with pure goodness and have their place in an everlasting space, we must consider other possibilities.

I have been active on this forum since late '89-early '90 the same arguments and the same out-of-context proof texts are repeated over and over and over. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel every time someone else repeats the same old, same old argument.
I believe what the Jews believed. Jesus didn't contradict them so why should I? You may read my previous post on this.
Post [#3912] this thread.

 

[hedrick]

This discussion has changed my mind about a couple of things, largely because I agree with Der Alte that when Jesus used common 1st Century language, it's reasonable to believe he used them in the usual sense.

1) I had previously argued for annihilation, because many of the standard ECT passages talk about destruction, and others tend to quote Is 66. Is 66 was clearly not about ECT. The worms were eating dead bodies. However this language was used by Jewish writers to refer to Gehenna, so Isaiah's original meaning probably doesn't matter to NT references. I think conditional immorality is a possible reading of Paul, but I don't make the arguments I used to about destruction.

2) I hadn't really investigated the Jewish concept of Gehenna. In doing so I found that while Gehenna is spoken of as eternal, most people got out. Most of the evidence about Jewish belief is later than the first century, so it's a bit unclear just how many. My impression is that initially everyone got out except a few named individuals, and exceptions (those who didn't get out) grew. But I wouldn't bet a lot on this.

 

[Der Alte]

Cool, so Origen also taught once saved always saved.

I wouldn't go quite that far. But he certainly gave a definitive definition of "aionios" and it ain't the nonsensical phrase "age during."

 

[ozso]

This discussion has changed my mind about a couple of things, largely because I agree with Der Alte that when Jesus used common 1st Century language, it's reasonable to believe he used them in the usual sense.

1) I had previously argued for annihilation, because many of the standard ECT passages talk about destruction, and others tend to quote Is 66. Is 66 was clearly not about ECT. The worms were eating dead bodies. However this language was used by Jewish writers to refer to Gehenna, so Isaiah's original meaning probably doesn't matter to NT references. I think conditional immorality is a possible reading of Paul, but I don't make the arguments I used to about destruction.

2) I hadn't really investigated the Jewish concept of Gehenna. In doing so I found that while Gehenna is spoken of as eternal, most people got out. Most of the evidence about Jewish belief is later than the first century, so it's a bit unclear just how many. My impression is that initially everyone got out except a few named individuals, and exceptions (those who didn't get out) grew. But I wouldn't bet a lot on this.

The question is by Jesus' time, how much Jewish belief had been polluted by Babylonian influence? However, I don't think Jesus was appealing to anything contemporaneous. I think he was only reflecting back to scripture written by his own prophets, which he himself became the last one of. And also was himself the the fulfilment of much prophetic scripture.

 

[hedrick]

The question is by Jesus' time, how much Jewish belief had been polluted by Babylonian influence? However, I don't think Jesus was appealing to anything contemporaneous. I think he was only reflecting back to scripture written by his own prophets, which he himself became the last one of. And also was himself the the fulfilment of much prophetic scripture.

If Jesus expected to be understood, he would have to take into account how his listeners would understand his words.

 

[ozso]

If Jesus expected to be understood, he would have to take into account how his listeners would understand his words.

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts and turn, and
I would heal them.’ Matthew 13:10-15

 

[Der Alte]

The question is by Jesus' time, how much Jewish belief had been polluted by Babylonian influence? However, I don't think Jesus was appealing to anything contemporaneous. I think he was only reflecting back to scripture written by his own prophets, which he himself became the last one of. And also was himself the the fulfilment of much prophetic scripture.

If that is true why didn't Jesus confront them and correct their false beliefs? As a devout Jew Jesus would have gone to temple on all the required dates every year and He attended synagogue regularly both for about 25 years +/-.
He would have known what they taught about everything, including their belief in the place of fiery eternal punishment which they called both Hades and Gehenna. But everything Jesus said on that subject supported the extant Jewish belief and practice. If anything the Jews taught originated in Babylon Jesus would certainly have criticized them but He never said a word against it.

 

[public hermit]

I have been active on this forum since late '89-early '90 the same arguments and the same out-of-context proof texts are repeated over and over and over. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel every time someone else repeats the same old, same old argument.
I believe what the Jews believed. Jesus didn't contradict them so why should I? You may read my previous post on this.
Post [#3912] this thread.

Gehenna is literal because that was the conception of the time, and Jesus affirmed it. That's your claim. Is Jesus affirming it's reality or speaking appropriate to the context in which he came? Those actions aren't necessarily the same. All you have shown is that is what his contemporaries believed. Jesus's subjective state is ours upon which to speculate, which is no help.

His contemporaries also believed his role of Messiah would fit a certain pattern, which did not obtain. They saw him as a fleshly king who would destroy Israel's enemies with fleshly violence and earned blood. That's not what happens.

The Incarnate God dies. Now, all previous conceptions of what should be are overturned. Why should we believe, now, those other Jewish conceptions about Gegenna that held in antiquity hold post-cross/resurrection? Jesus said, this temple will be destroyed. Which temple? At the very best, your notion of Jewish hell needs to be reinterpreted through the lens of Christ, which you insist has not happened.

As far as historical approaches to what Jesus might have believed, any historical assessment can never go further than where the eyes of faith start. So, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[ozso]

I have been active on this forum since late '89-early '90 the same arguments and the same out-of-context proof texts are repeated over and over and over. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel every time someone else repeats the same old, same old argument.
I believe what the Jews believed. Jesus didn't contradict them so why should I? You may read my previous post on this.
Post [#3912] this thread.

Speaking of wheels, your posts take threads in circles with the same repetitious reruns. PH will go over it with you, but no matter how many flaws might be pointed out, you'll just repeat the reruns.

 

[ozso]

If that is true why didn't Jesus confront them and correct their false beliefs?

As I have said before, Jesus did confront them regarding their false teaching. I've posted scripture showing that. But then you go right back to square one. Round and round, over and over, repeat rerun repeat.

As a devout Jew Jesus would have gone to temple on all the required dates every year and He attended synagogue regularly both for about 25 years +/-.
He would have known what they taught about everything, including their belief in the place of fiery eternal punishment which they called both Hades and Gehenna. But everything Jesus said on that subject supported the extant Jewish belief and practice. If anything the Jews taught originated in Babylon Jesus would certainly have criticized them but He never said a word against it.

Jesus was more than a devout Jew who regularly attended synagogue, he was the Word of God and He was God. When he was only 12 he was the one doing the teaching in the synagogue. It's pretty clear that Jesus knew and understood far more than anyone else.

Your belief is that Jesus was teaching things that appealed to and affirmed post prophet writings of things that did not exist in the writings of the prophets that were compiled into the Old Testament. That Jesus was appealing to a system of teaching he condemned as corrupt and to post prophet apocryphal deuterocanonical writings such as Judith.

My belief is that Jesus was reaching back to what was written by his own appointed prophets about Jesus himself and the final judgement of Israel in the role of being Israel's final prophet. That his speaking about the Valley of Hinnom etc was in reference to what had been written by his appointed prophets, rather than to what was written in Judith or any other deuterocanonical apocrypha.

 

[Fervent]

Gehenna is literal because that was the conception of the time, and Jesus affirmed it. That's your claim. Is Jesus affirming it's reality or speaking appropriate to the context in which he came? Those actions aren't necessarily the same. All you have shown is that is what his contemporaries believed. Jesus's subjective state is ours upon which to speculate, which is no help.

His contemporaries also believed his role of Messiah would fit a certain pattern, which did not obtain. They saw him as a fleshly king who would destroy Israel's enemies with fleshly violence and earned blood. That's not what happens.

The Incarnate God dies. Now, all previous conceptions of what should be are overturned. Why should we believe, now, those other Jewish conceptions about Gegenna that held in antiquity hold post-cross/resurrection? Jesus said, this temple will be destroyed. Which temple? At the very best, your notion of Jewish hell needs to be reinterpreted through the lens of Christ, which you insist has not happened.

As far as historical approaches to what Jesus might have believed, any historical assessment can never go further than where the eyes of faith start. So, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

There's a pretty serious flaw to speculating that Jesus was merely speaking in terms that were contextually sensitive. Jesus does nothing to transform the context, or turn it on its head, but appears to be delivering it straight. Hell isn't made more palatable when interpreted through Christ, but it becomes even worse than the Jewish religious figures had imagined. Their fear is appropriate, it simply does not go far enough in that rather than fearing the governmental forces who can kill their body they should fear the one who is able to deliver that ultimate penalty that is worse than death in that it kills both body and spirit. Jesus makes no indication that they have mis-identified those horrific aspects of God but that they do not take them seriously enough.

 

[ozso]

There's a pretty serious flaw to speculating that Jesus was merely speaking in terms that were contextually sensitive. Jesus does nothing to transform the context, or turn it on its head, but appears to be delivering it straight. Hell isn't made more palatable when interpreted through Christ, but it becomes even worse than the Jewish religious figures had imagined. Their fear is appropriate, it simply does not go far enough in that rather than fearing the governmental forces who can kill their body they should fear the one who is able to deliver that ultimate penalty that is worse than death in that it kills both body and spirit. Jesus makes no indication that they have mis-identified those horrific aspects of God but that they do not take them seriously enough.

So the idea is that the Jewish religious figures imagined something, and Jesus went on to confirm it and tell them that the reality is even worse than what they imagined. In other words, the reality of the situation isn't to be found in what God told us through all of his prophets and judges, but rather to be found in the imagining of Jewish religious figures who came afterwards. The same Jewish religious figures who's teaching Jesus condemned and who decided that Jesus was a liar and false prophet and had him crucified. I don't see how that can possibly add up.

 

[Hmm]

Ah, that's a shame. Desmond Tutu has died today on Boxing Day.
Anti-apartheid hero Archbishop Desmond Tutu dies aged 90

He was the Archbishop of Cape Town and a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work against Apartheid.

He was a Christian universalist and here are some words from him on UR:

"God's pursuit of the sinner is a risky gamble, but it is not a futile one. God is no fool. God would not risk everything on a gamble that was doomed to fail. In fact, the early Christian theologian Origen would maintain that the odds are in God's favour. And time is on God's side. Origen believed that God's love is so irresistible that heaven will ultimately win us all. He scandalised his contemporaries by asserting that at the end of time even Satan would abandon hell to worship God in heaven.

Perhaps we too, are shaken by the thought that our enemies will not burn in Hades throughout eternity. But, ultimately, the reality of heaven cannot tolerate the existence of hell. Even our worst enemies are God's beloved children. What kind of God could endure the sight of God's own children screaming in eternal pain? If we believe in the good God, we must believe that we are all made to inhabit heaven. We are made for goodness.

We will not be driven into heaven by the fear of hell, rather, we will be drawn into heaven by the love of God. The power of evil will ultimately become unattractive, and we will yield to the beauty of heaven. So God's sacrifice is costly in time and it is worthwhile in eternity. It is risky in time, but the outcome is assured in eternity. At the end of time we must succumb to God. So God is willing to sacrifice everything to win us to the place where we are meant to be."

And this from in a sermon he preached in St. Paul's Cathedral, London:

"there is an openness demonstrated by the arms of our Lord strung out on the cross as if to embrace the whole cosmos, because it was God's intention to include, to bring all things to a unity, in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There is nothing that must be left outside... Jesus did not say, "I, if I be lifted up, I will draw some." Jesus said, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all, all, all, all, all" (John 12:32)... All, all are meant to be held in this incredible embrace that will not let us go. All."

We were lucky to have him and may he rest in peace.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

But, ultimately, the reality of heaven cannot tolerate the existence of hell.

Bishop Tutu apparently found something agreeable in universalism.

No doubt he was better versed than me in scripture, and I'm sure he would have been aware of Paul's correction of those foolish Galatians who found themselves confronted by the old judaising heresy for which Paul had needed to face down Peter years earlier.

Paul needs to remind them in Gal 3 that it is God's promise to Abraham that all nations shall be blessed, which is given by the faith of Christ. That universal spiritual blessing is the making righteous (justification) of the nations, preceding and fulfilling the law. And that blessing is partaken of by all who believe, unlike the fleshy curse under the works of the law.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22)

So Christ has done all the work, the only thing needed from the gentile is to believe. Spiritual account credited, time to check the balance. So who will believe?

We look to God's own sworn oath, addressed to 'all the ends of the earth' (another universal prophecy):

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isa 45:23)

And Paul reveals the nexus is Christ:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth (Phil 2:10).

And in fact, this is all against validated by Revelation 22:3: And there shall be no more curse.

So the circle is complete - promise given, universalised and guaranteed in Christ.

If you're looking around wondering where all the Christians are in the world, we need to keep in mind that Jesus has conquered death. Death is no longer an obstacle to salvation of the spirit.

So I'm with Bishop Desmond: What's not to like?

(Ps congrats on 200+ pages and going strong!)

 

[Hmm]

Paul needs to remind them in Gal 3 that it is God's promise to Abraham that all nations shall be blessed, which is given by the faith of Christ. That universal spiritual blessing is the making righteous (justification) of the nations, preceding and fulfilling the law. And that blessing is partaken of by all who believe, unlike the fleshy curse under the works of the law.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22)

So Christ has done all the work, the only thing needed from the gentile is to believe. Spiritual account credited, time to check the balance. So who will believe?

We look to God's own sworn oath, addressed to 'all the ends of the earth' (another universal prophecy):

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isa 45:23)

And Paul reveals the nexus is Christ:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth (Phil 2:10).

And in fact, this is all against validated by Revelation 22:3: And there shall be no more curse.

So the circle is complete - promise given, universalised and guaranteed in Christ.

It's amazing when put like that. So simple yet so profound.

So I'm with Bishop Desmond: What's not to like?

I'm still waiting to hear Hopefully we'll hear something before the year is out.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It's amazing when put like that. So simple yet so profound.

The gospel was preached to the shepherds by the angel. Imagine if Gabriel had put them through a 4 year course in advanced systematic theology. They'd have been bickering with the Magi in the manger there over the choice of gifts and so on.

It's simply, 'Glad tidings of great joy for all mankind.' Waaaal, except for...unless....subject to....on condition that...under certain circumstances...

That kind of treatment would only evidence the persistence of the curse.

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Gal 3:3)

I'm still waiting to hear Hopefully we'll hear something before the year is out.

The stubborn and senseless legalistic resistance to UR is what's not to like. 'Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem...but ye would not.'