Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

To begin, I said that there are some verses that suggest (not prove, but hint at) UR.

I agree that any amount of verses by themselves won't prove the case because there are other verses that suggest ECT and a few that support annihilation. But I think "hint" is too weak a word given the number of "universalist type" verses

Yes, Christ's sacrifice can be said to "lead to...life for all." But there are all sorts of ways that "life" can be interpreted that is not an eternity in heaven, and "lead to" does not say "it's guaranteed," which is what you hope to find.

But does "life" need to be interpreted. Doesn't it simply mean life?

The verse is this:

Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.
Romans 5:18

so it doesn't only say "lead to", it says "lead to in the same way that Adam's sin lead to our estrangement from God." We are all alienated by God and so the meaning must be that we will all be justified and be given new life.

And it's not so much what I hope to find, although I do, it's more what I think the Bible is saying - if I didn't believe it really does say that I would simply give up my faith. I wouldn't bother trying to twist the meaning - what would be the point?

Do you then believe Scripture to be promising eternal life for all animals and/or the righting of all unfortunate events, etc.? If not, why does it say "all things'' (not all Men)?

As a dog owner, I honestly do believe that!

And then we have to deal with the many other and more numerous verses that seem with even more certainty to speak of the lost being eternally LOST! By and large, in these discussions, they are just dismissed as "not translated correctly."

But what if it was all caused by mistranslations as many scholars believe? I may be cynical but that is entirely conceivable to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

I, for one, am willing to believe that Universalism is true, IF the person explaining it to me can jump through the Hermeneutical and Exegetical hoops that I kind of expect him/her to jump through in order to handle any of the Bible's contents ...

 

[Hmm]

No Creed, whether the Nicene or Athanasian or any other, affirms universal salvation

But neither do they talk about ECT. The Nicene creed talks about looking forward to the resurrection of the dead. That is consistent with universalism at least.

You are mainly talking about the opinion of certain historical figures and the attitudes of certain theological schools from that era, not the historic church.

I'm sure there were differences of opinion in the early church but many of the figures who were out and out universalists were major players: Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and so on. They aren't the historical church but what is the historical church is these figures are excluded?

 

[Hmm]

I, for one, am willing to believe that Universalism is true, IF the person explaining it to me can jump through the Hermeneutical and Exegetical hoops that I kind of expect him/her to jump through in order to handle any of the Bible's contents ...

I could do it as easily as a performing seal!

 

[Maria Billingsley]

But what does that mean? I do not agree that Jesus Christ of Nazareth would torment someone forever and His Gospel most certainly does not teach that He would, however sad that may be.

Ah ok. So you believe in Universalism. I love Jesus Christ of Nazareth no matter how He deals with those who hate Him. Can you love Him to that extent? Or do you have guidelines?

 

[Hmm]

Ah ok. So you believe in Universalism. I love Jesus Christ of Nazareth no matter how He deals with those who hate Him. Can you love Him to that extent? Or do you have guidelines?

I have moral guidelines. I would not love Jesus Christ of Nazareth if he was willing to torment people forever, however much they "hated" him. Just like I could not love a human father who tortured his children for the rest of their lives, or even for one second, simply because they said "I hate you daddy!", or for any reason whatsoever come to that. I believe our moral conscience is from God and tells us about his nature anyway so there is no question in my mind that God is like this.

Can anyone really love a God who is responsible for, or who at least allows, ECT? Seems to me you can only either fear or reject such a god. Love is not an option.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can anyone really love a God who is responsible for, or who at least allows, ECT? Seems to me you can only either fear or reject such a god. Love is not an option.

Well, you know what they say, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

It is a false teaching designed to lead many away from God and His Word.

WHY UNIVERSALISM IS NOT TRUE?

 

[Cormack]

I have moral guidelines.

I believe our moral conscience is from God and tells us about his nature anyway so there is no question in my mind that God is like this.

Can anyone really love a God who is responsible for, or who at least allows, ECT? Seems to me you can only either fear or reject such a god. Love is not an option.

Often it really seems that Christians don’t believe in things like morals or divine love, not when you dig deep into their doctrinal spaghetti.

They believe in power. They believe God has the power and that’s the only thing that really matters.

Their talk of how you or I should behave morally or what we should drink, eat or listen to on the radio is about power too. Their power authorised from on high.

Morals serve as ornaments to their ego.

 

[Hmm]

Well, you know what they say, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Maybe, but from my current perspective this would only be possible for me if I had a complete personality bypass and became essentially someone who wasn't me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe, but from my current perspective this would only be possible for me if I had a complete personality bypass and became essentially someone who wasn't me.

Doesn't "all things" in this case mean that you're covered, too? "All" means "all," right?

 

[Hmm]

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

It is a false teaching designed to lead many away from God and His Word.

WHY UNIVERSALISM IS NOT TRUE?

Try telling that to the influential early Christian Universalists next time you meet them in this list compiled by Patristics scholar Ilaria Ramelli:

The main Patristic supporters of the apokatastasis theory, such as Bardaisan, Clement, Origin, Didymus, St. Anthony, St. Pamphilus Martyr, Methodius, St. Macrina, St. Gregory of Nyssa (and probably the two other Cappadocians), St. Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John of Jerusalem, Rufinus, St. Jerome and St. Augustine (at least initially) … Cassian, St. Issac of Nineveh, St. John of Dalyatha, Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite, probably St. Maximus the Confessor, up to John the Scot Eriugena, and many others, grounded their Christian doctrine of apokatastasis first of all in the Bible.
— Ramelli, Christian Doctrine, 11.​

 

[Andrewn]

Can anyone really love a God who is responsible for, or who at least allows, ECT? Seems to me you can only either fear or reject such a god. Love is not an option.

There is even worse theology than that: Calvinists who believe God predestines only few people to heaven :-(.

 

[Hmm]

Doesn't "all things" in this case mean that you're covered, too? "All" means "all," right?

Yes, if "all" means "all" I would be the first to bow my knee and praise such a glorious God.

 

[Hmm]

They believe in power. They believe God has the power and that’s the only thing that really matters.

I believe you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, if "all" means "all" I would be the first to bow my knee and praise such a glorious God.

I guess now we just have to have someone tell us if in this case "all" means "all." Does it?

So, it's your call since it's you're thread, and you're the performer. I'm just another head in the audience.

 

[Basil the Great]

Universalism is a very appealing concept, as long as Hitler and other mass murderers are forced to truly repent before they are allowed into Heaven.

 

[Hmm]

I guess now we just have to have someone tell us if in this case "all" means "all." Does it?

So, it's your call since it's you're thread, and you're the performer. I'm just another head in the audience.

Well, let's consider the word "all" in this verse:

for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
I Corinthians 15:22​

I have to go off to eat some more fish so let me pass you on to philosopher Keith deRose and his analysis.of this:

"Note the “all.” I guess there can be some question about what it means to be made alive in Christ. A cynic might suggest that some might be made alive in order to stand judgment and be tortured forever. But that’s very strained, especially after one’s read the surrounding context of this passage and has also discovered what’s usually meant by such phrases. It’s very clear, I think, that those who are “made alive” in Christ are, as it’s often put, “saved.” The question is, To whom will this happen? This passage’s answer: All! A point of grammar, which holds for the Greek as well as our English translations: The grammatical function of “in Christ” here is not to modify or limit the “all.” The passage doesn’t say, “…so also shall all who are in Christ be made alive.” If it said that, I wouldn’t be so cheered by the passage. Rather, “in Christ” is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb “shall be made” or perhaps the whole clause, “shall all be made alive.” Thus, this passage says that all shall be made alive. How? In Christ."

 

[Hmm]

Universalism is a very appealing concept, as long as Hitler and other mass murderers are forced to truly repent before they are allowed into Heaven.

I agree although I wouldn't use the word "forced". Who wouldn't finally repent? Is even Hitler so evil that he would eternally refuse to repent and receive God’s love? It's conceivable I guess but would it really happen? Would not God revealing his love and beauty over an unlimited amount of time in a remedial "hell" “be able to eventually draw in even someone like Hitler? Even he is someone who God created and loves as his child.

 

[Jay Sea]

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.

My Gut feeling is that there has to be a universalism to "Salvation" or whatever term you wish to use for everyone going to be with G-d in the next "world" by the very nature of G-d. If even mankind by nature would not abandon another that they deeply love, G-d certainly will "NOT". No matter what scripture may say. I'll back G-d before anything intermediated in revelation through man or church doctrine.
In Love
Jay Sea