Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[ozso]

While it is ambiguos about where the workers of lawlessness are to depart, the verse is a pretty strong statement against universalism since Jesus makes explicit reference to "that day," which is the day of God's vengeance, and expresses a final judgment. Whether that means they depart to annhilation, or eternal torment is rather immaterial when the question at hand is universalism.

I agree that it's ambiguous and that presumption is involved, as opposed to it being conclusive.
The only difference I see in UR is the third option that they depart to age long chastisement. Why is say a 1000 years of hell an insufficient punishment? As far as annihilation goes, I personally don't find that the least bit scary. I've heard atheists/agnostics/whatever say that they don't fear death at all, because it will be the same as before they were born. Such as, "I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state." - Roger Ebert (who died of cancer).

 

[Shrewd Manager]

There's no sworn oath there, but a conditional statement: Turn to me, and be saved. Those who turn, are saved. Those who don't are damned. But claiming a conditional statement is a sworn oath shows the duplicitous manner you handle Scripture.

Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear [allegiance] - Isa 45:22-23

You have to watch out when you make false accusations, isn't that what the Chief Priest did? Wasn't he, a um, er, Pharisee?

All of which require context to properly understand, such as the reference from Joel where the statement is explicitly limited to Israel both before and after. All this is is cherry picking quotes without context to make the Bible say something that it doesn't actually say when the verse is read in its whole context.

That's right, I cherry-pick quotes, like God's sworn oaths and covenant promises. They're all actually so qualified and conditioned that only the truly worthy and righteous make it through, right?

Not twisting myself in pretzel-logic to avoid a consequent is not the same thing as "misrepresenting." I'm aware that universalists pay lip-service to Christian verbiage, but can easily be referred to as "these people honor me with their lips..."

Correct, it does God no honour when we read down His express plan to save the world, and portray Him as some psycho mafia don. If most ppl end up in hell, than can He be worthy of the appellations, glorious God of life, love, grace, mercy, justice, goodness, holiness, truth and trustworthiness, the redeemer and restorer, the great physician and maker of all things bright and beautiful..? Plainly NOT.

Now there's some weasel speak.

Now isn't that charitable? The HS is teaching us to confront our own hypocritical self-righteousness.

If God can save a wretch like me, the chief of sinners like Paul, then maybe, just maybe, He might shew mercy unto all, like the still small voice after the wind, fire and rain, like a trickle from the east of the Temple that swells into a torrent and cascades into the Arabah, giving life to all things.

 

[Saint Steven]

Seems to me the issue is made overly complicated. The only difference is instead of hell being endless torment it's an age long punishment. But apparently if hell lasts 1000 years, that's not long enough. The other is perhaps the annihilation that's picked up on is the annihilation of sin rather than people. From my perspective that's UR in a nutshell.

That's good.
But I'm still not comfortable calling it "torment" and "punishment". I know you needed to use those common terms in your discussion to aid understand in who you were speaking to. But...

The terms "torment" and "punishment" carry such negative connotations. Like imprisonment, torture, forced confessions, serving a sentence, cruelty, etc. (bad food - lol)

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't go to church for amusement value.

You should try a Charismatic church. - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

We'd all be better off without that kind of vicious ultimatum.

In my view, it amounts to spiritual extortion. Bow or burn.

Receive the free gift of salvation. If not, you'll be incinerated.
And don't wait. You never know when you might be hit by a passing bus.
Then it will be too late.

 

[Saint Steven]

I remember when I was younger I was talking about all the last days views, such as the pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib therories. And the person I was speaking to said, "how about the pan theory?". That being, it will all pan out in the end.

I was going to reply to your post citing the pan-trib theory. - lol
You beat me to the punch line.

 

[Saint Steven]

Does it take hubris to go to hell for eternity now? Actually, with the kind of god you describe, I'd be better off in hell. I mean that.

Yes. That's what it boils down to.

If God really is as the Infernalists describe him, he cannot be trusted. Everyone will end up in hell eventually.

 

[Saint Steven]

ALL ----> JESUS -----> GOD.

See how that works?

That's great. - lol

It brought an image to my mind of a children's Sunday school class with the words ALL and GOD on the flannel board. (with space in between to add the word JESUS)

The children, all sitting cross-legged on the floor are asked, "How do we get to God?" To which they answer in chorus, "JESUS!!!!"

 

[Saint Steven]

Why isn't say a 1000 years of hell an insufficient punishment?

Right.
I contend that 3 to 5 seconds in hell, as the Infernalists describe it, would be enough to convert anyone. Anything more than that is sadistic cruelty on the grandest level.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Yes. That's what it boils down to.

If God really is as the Infernalists describe him, he cannot be trusted. Everyone will end up in hell eventually.

100%. What do you think of this one? I followed up on the '2 sparrows sell for a penny' in Matt 10:29. Well, it seems that the word translated as 'sparrow' can just mean 'small bird'. And why the 2 small bird purchase? Not to eat or keep as pets, surely. It's a reference to the 2 turtledoves/ pigeons offering of Leviticus, found in particular in Lev 14:4, which is to do with purification from disease. Also seen as a sacrifice in the consecration of baby Jesus in Luke 2:24.

So it seems to me Jesus is leading the disciples away from ECT preconceptions by using that passing reference to the 2 birds as symbolic sin offerings for purification/ cleansing.

 

[Saint Steven]

100%. What do you think of this one? I followed up on the '2 sparrows sell for a penny' in Matt 10:29. Well, it seems that the word translated as 'sparrow' can just mean 'small bird'. And why the 2 small bird purchase? Not to eat or keep as pets, surely. It's a reference to the 2 turtledoves/ pigeons offering of Leviticus, found in particular in Lev 14:4, which is to do with purification from disease. Also seen as a sacrifice in the consecration of baby Jesus in Luke 2:24.

So it seems to me Jesus is leading the disciples away from ECT preconceptions by using that passing reference to the 2 birds as symbolic sin offerings for purification/ cleansing.

Wow, that's rich with meaning.

And the context is curious as well. Following a Damnationist proof-text about fear of destroying both soul and body in hell, comes the revelation of our value to our heavenly Father. Which leads to this, "So don’t be afraid..." - vs 31

Why number the hairs of those predestined to ECT ? Are they REALLY worth more than many sparrows? Seems so.

Matt 10:28-31 NIV
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

 

[ozso]

Wow, that's rich with meaning.

And the context is curious as well. Following a Damnationist proof-text about fear of destroying both soul and body in hell, comes the revelation of our value to our heavenly Father. Which leads to this, "So don’t be afraid..." - vs 31

Why number the hairs of those predestined to ECT ? Are they REALLY worth more than many sparrows? Seems so.

Matt 10:28-31 NIV
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

That's another gem proof text that goes nowhere for me. God can destroy body and soul. Not will, but can. What can't God do? He can turn us all into tadpoles if He wants to. Then of course when the rest is added, it looks like even less of a proof text for damnation.

 

[Der Alte]

I thought scholars delighted in the "...obscure, difficult to find..." but apparently not if it goes against the grain. Helling fruits and veggies was, and probably still is, done, but it is a minor point - however it does take us back to the original meanings of "hell" and "infernum," which is to say, under the ground.
Of course, you change the narrative to your advantage, as you have done before. I did not mention the Norwegian word for "hell," as I was concerned with the connection between the 1611 KJV, Beowulf and old Norse mythology. If you prefer to plaster over it, be my guest, but my position is posted.* **

I guess I owe you an apology. I did another online search for "helling" and Lo, what did I find? But I feel obliged to give you a word of caution. There are some pitfalls you might fall into. Just sayin'

Word History:
word History: When the Anglo-Saxons became Christian in early medieval times, the Old English word hel was used to translate the Latin word infernus, The lower region, hell,” and designate the fiery place of eternal punishment for the damned But what did hel designate before the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons? We can discover some indication of the original pagan meaning of hel by examining its Old Norse equivalent. hel. The medieval Scandinavians and Icelanders were converted from paganism much later than the Anglo-Saxons, and they preserved a good deal of pagan poetry revealing the ancient Scandinavian vision of the afterworld. The medieval lcelandic scholar Snorri Sturluson, a Christian, also paints a vivid picture of hel for us in his accounts of Norse myth (although his description may have been influenced by his own Christian conception of hell). The Old Norse hel is the abode of oathbreakers, other evil persons, and those unlucky enough to have died of old age or sickness rather than in the glory of the battlefield. Unlike the typical Christian conception of Hell, the Old Norse hel is very cold. It contrasts sharply with Valhalla, the hall in Asgard where heroes slain in battle carouse with the gods after death. In Old Norse, Hel is also the name of the goddess or giantess who presides in hel. She is the daughter of the god Loki and sister of the enormous wolf that will attack the gods at the end of the world. One half of Hel's body is blue-black, while the other is white. The Indo-European root behind Old English hel and Old Norse hel, as well as their Germanic relatives like German Hölle, “hell,” is kel-, “to cover, conceal.” In origin, hell is thus the “concealed place “The root akel.. also gives us other words for things that cover, conceal, or contain, such as hall, hole, hollow, helmet, and even Valhalla, from Old Norse Valhôll, literally the “Hall (hôlll) of the Slain (Valr).”
helling​

 

[Hillsage]

Sure, have it your own way. If that's the case I'll be going to hell out of compassion for the damned, if nothing else.

You are in good company, if you're willing to do such a thing. And I would even join you. Want to know why? Even Paul was willing to go to ORTHODOXY'S 'ETERNAL HELL' "for the sake of his" unbelieving Jewish "brethren".

ROM 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.

But then, I'm pretty sure Paul knew, like US , that he "could wish" to go to ORTHODOXY'S ETERNAL HELL, because he read Greek like YLT and knew HELL wasn't really ETERNAL. Not even Jesus paid the price of ORTHODOXY'S ETERNAL HELL. That's because it never was THE PRICE. IF ETERNAL HELL, or ETERNAL DEATH, or ETERNAL SEPARATION FROM GOD was the price, then Jesus "dammed" well should still be paying THAT PRICE.

GEN 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,

Loss of immortality and ultimate physical death, was the price for sin spelled out in the Garden....before ROMAN theologians got involved anyway.

And physical death was the price paid by My Lord on the cross. SIN couldn't kill him, he had no sin. Jesus committed suicide For US, yielding His spirit of life, to the Father, and His sinless immortal body DIED...for THREE DAYS.

How's that HUBRIS?

 

[Saint Steven]

He can turn us all into tadpoles if He wants to.

That would be a lot of frogs. Would make the plague in Egypt look like a test run. - lol

 

[Gundy22]

Concerning Origen, I had always heard that he was anathematized because of beliefs that Satan and demons might some day be restored, forgiven...

I have never heard about a "splinter group" writing in Origen's name.

To me, maybe Origen was condemned by a church already corrupt - I never gave much credence to those condemning him

 

[Lazarus Short]

I guess I owe you an apology. I did another online search for "helling" and Lo, what did I find? But I feel obliged to give you a word of caution. There are some pitfalls you might fall into. Just sayin'

Word History:
word History: When the Anglo-Saxons became Christian in early medieval times, the Old English word hel was used to translate the Latin word infernus, The lower region, hell,” and designate the fiery place of eternal punishment for the damned But what did hel designate before the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons? We can discover some indication of the original pagan meaning of hel by examining its Old Norse equivalent. hel. The medieval Scandinavians and Icelanders were converted from paganism much later than the Anglo-Saxons, and they preserved a good deal of pagan poetry revealing the ancient Scandinavian vision of the afterworld. The medieval lcelandic scholar Snorri Sturluson, a Christian, also paints a vivid picture of hel for us in his accounts of Norse myth (although his description may have been influenced by his own Christian conception of hell). The Old Norse hel is the abode of oathbreakers, other evil persons, and those unlucky enough to have died of old age or sickness rather than in the glory of the battlefield. Unlike the typical Christian conception of Hell, the Old Norse hel is very cold. It contrasts sharply with Valhalla, the hall in Asgard where heroes slain in battle carouse with the gods after death. In Old Norse, Hel is also the name of the goddess or giantess who presides in hel. She is the daughter of the god Loki and sister of the enormous wolf that will attack the gods at the end of the world. One half of Hel's body is blue-black, while the other is white. The Indo-European root behind Old English hel and Old Norse hel, as well as their Germanic relatives like German Hölle, “hell,” is kel-, “to cover, conceal.” In origin, hell is thus the “concealed place “The root akel.. also gives us other words for things that cover, conceal, or contain, such as hall, hole, hollow, helmet, and even Valhalla, from Old Norse Valhôll, literally the “Hall (hôlll) of the Slain (Valr).”
helling​

Pitfalls and pratfalls - we all have them on the way to the Kingdom. Thanks for the link!

 

[Der Alte]

***

Right.
I contend that 3 to 5 seconds in hell, as the Infernalists describe it, would be enough to convert anyone. Anything more than that is sadistic cruelty on the grandest level.

Someone who is convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. Those whom God consigns to 3-5 seconds, or any other lesser/greater, period of time, of unbearable hell would say anything to get out. I'm pretty sure God knows that. When/how does the change to loving, obedient Christians occur?

 

[Fervent]

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking into account what various scholars have to say. I think the mistake is propping up a scholar or expert as being infallible and the final word on something. I'm sorry that you see my post as "throwing smoke". I'm just casually discussing a subject from my pov. It might help if you keep in mind that I say I don't know for sure about much. Like anyone else I have to explore and reason things out, and I acknowledge that I could easily be wrong. While it's possible that Brad Jersak and Archbishop Lazar worked the system to get their accolades and fancy credentials, I haven't come across any reason to suspect such. From what I've read apokatastasis/universalism was taught in the Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa schools of theology. Again, this isn't me trying to prove anything, I just personally think it's worth taking into consideration.

The issue with scholars is that a minority of scholars who are saying something contrary to what the majority of scholars are often propped up by people in no position to evaluate whether they are, in fact, experts in the subjects they are being held up as scholars. When I said Hierotheus was an expert in patristics, I wasn't speaking generically but that his advanced degrees are all in patristic studies. The general scholastic opinion is to question whether even the one most certain to have taught it, Origen, who was anathematized for it even taught it. The main reason it was thought to be somewhat widespread is that Alexandrian authors adopted platonic language, as universalism is from Plato not the Bible. The form of apocatastasis that a handful of Alexandrian scholars bordered on teaching was no a guaranteed salvation, but a holding out of hope for such a thing. They weren't anathematized for teaching universalism because up until recently(as in post 1800) no one even broached the possibility, it was well understood that they did not teach universalism and that the philosophical terms used that make it seem they might have were being Christianized and were, primarily, speculative rather than definitive. It has never been based on the Bible instead coming from Greek philosophy, and that's the main problem.

 

[Fervent]

I agree that it's ambiguous and that presumption is involved, as opposed to it being conclusive.
The only difference I see in UR is the third option that they depart to age long chastisement. Why is say a 1000 years of hell an insufficient punishment? As far as annihilation goes, I personally don't find that the least bit scary. I've heard atheists/agnostics/whatever say that they don't fear death at all, because it will be the same as before they were born. Such as, "I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state." - Roger Ebert (who died of cancer).

The passage is not ambiguous that this is a final judgment, especially when the context in which Jesus was speaking is understood. There is no "depart to an age long chastisement" present within the Bible, in fact no where in the Bible is there a teaching of an "age long chastisement." Such a thing is a pure invention to preserve the notion of universalism, partially based on improper linguistics conflating two related words and treating them as the same word. Bringing things into the text to force them to not contradict when they clearly do is exactly the kind of shoddy hermeneutics I am objecting to, as it is clear that in such a case what the person wants the text to say is more important than what it actually says.