Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Hmm said:

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.

Click to expand...

The only problem I have with universalism is that it is not true. God has no delight in the death of the wicked and neither do I. I have not always thought this way. I've come to reject universalism after a good deal of study and looking at universalist arguments as objectively as I can. Who would not want to see unsaved parents and loved ones in heaven? The problem is that God is judge and not us.

The more important issue is incentive. It shows the extent of man's fall, but the conviction of sin is essential to get people to repent and receive Christ. Sinners love sin. Watch their hackles rise as they rebel against God's judgement. Lord Jesus said it best, of course. John 3:19

"And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil."

It is the Holy Spirit's job to convict of sin and that through the preaching of the gospel. To tell someone that it's okay, they will be saved anyway, is false. They will brighten up, relax and get on with their sinful and selfish lives. We will have to answer to God for what we do and say in this life.

Hmm said:

That's true (original sin) for the mainstream western traditions but not for the Eastern Orthodox church which has the more meaningful concept of ancestral sin.

Click to expand...

I find the more meaningful concept to be God's declaration negating ancestral sin in Ezekiel 18:20; Jeremiah 31:29-30; Galatians 6:7.

Hmm said:

I don't think we mere mortals can ever prove anything about God. Where were you when He made the universe etc?

Click to expand...

We can prove what his word written presents, just as Jesus did in Mark 12:23-27; Matthew 12:1-8, Matthew 19:3-6, Matthew 21:12-13,
Matthew 21:15-16, Matthew 9:11-13.

Hmm said:

Another thoughtful post. I have always have to make a really strong cup of tea before I can reply to your posts! I'll have a go...
By the same logic, you could ask

Click to expand...

why is there any sense if urgency to preach to people who are not at the point of death because they can always repent then.

Click to expand...

That's all you got? . .an assumption that we will always know when that is.
You know what ass-u-me means, right? To make an ass(of)u(&)me.

I'm sure we'd both agree that sharing the Good News is important not because people need to reserve a place in heaven but so that they can enjoy a loving relationship with God here and now and help to do His work in this world. Being able to repent on your deathbed or after death does not change that.

Also, repentence is often a difficult and painful thing to do. If you have rejected God and his values throughout this life, wouldn't the sheer amount of delusion and pride mean that it would be even painful in "hell" and who would want to go through that?





Is there any real difference, if God sends people to ECT, whether does so because He created them with this express purpose or because they failed to live up to the mark in someway before they died. Whether or not both scenarios are equally abhorrent, are they not both abhorrent?



Does everyone really get a chance to know God? What about people who go to church to learn about Him and never go back because they are told that God sends unbaptised babies to hell? The first church I ever attended told me this. Rejecting a god like this is not the same thing as rejecting God.



I agree, if there is a realm of existence where God is not present, not to mention one that lasts forever, then God would have failed to achieve His desire to restore all creation. I think where we disagree is that you would think hell can exist independently of God whereas I think nothing can exist outside of Him. I therefore do not believe in an eternal hell.



Not to repeat the many verses that have been posted in this and the other universalist threads about God being all in all and about Him restoring all people and all of His creation universalist, isn't the Harrowing of Hell not some evidence?

Click to expand...

Andrewn said:

Mat 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Click to expand...

That’s a completely different message in a completely different chapter to completely different people about a completely different subject. You can’t just grab verses out of thin air and place them wherever you want. That’s not how rightly dividing the word of God works. If your going to quote verses from other chapters they need to be presenting a somewhat similar context. Your trying to use this verse as if it were possible for Jesus to contradict what He said in Matthew 12:31-32. God cannot lie and He does not contradict Himself.

Andrewn said:

When did I say any of these things that you attribute to me? Please read more slowly to understand and quote any passage that is not clear. False witness is a sin, in fact it's mentioned in the 10 Commandments.

Click to expand...

Right here

Andrewn said:

The age to come (usually called eternity) is millions and millions of years. Anything can happen.

Click to expand...

Right here your saying that the word aeon refers to millions of years instead of actual eternity and your statement “anything can happen” suggests that they can be forgiven, when Jesus specifically stated that they will not be forgiven, they will never be forgiven, they have committed an eternal sin. Luke 12:10 Matthew 12:31 Mark 3:29.

spiritfilledjm said:

God does get what He wants. He doesn't want to save those who don't believe in Him. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. That whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." Those who believe. Sure God would love it if everyone believed, but they don't, therefore, He does not want those who don't. That is why all who are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life perish in the end.

Click to expand...

But He does want all men to be saved and come to the full knowledge of truth and that none should perish. 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9 specifically state this. I didn’t say He wants to save everyone who will not repent. He wants everyone to repent so that they will be saved but unfortunately everyone will not.

@Hmm
Christian Universalism. What's not to like? It is unscriptural? I have repeatedly asked for one verse, two or more would be better where the Father, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, states unequivocally that all mankind will be saved, righteous and unrighteous, even after death or words to that effect.
.....Some years ago I was flying from California to the east coast. The man next to me was reading the Bible. He was not in uniform but I started a conversation by saying "You're a military aviator." He looked at me startled and said "Do I have a sign on my forehead or something?" I said "No. you are wearing military issue aviator glasses and have a short military haircut." I told him I had been a helicopter pilot in Viet Nam. Then I said, "I have read that book I like how it ends."
How does it it end? Is all mankind saved, righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death?
One continuous narrative.
Vs. 4 “there shall be no more death.” After this there should not me any more death.
Vs. 5 “I make all things new.”
Vs. 7 “He that overcomes shall inherit all things.’ This makes a distinction between those who overcome and those who do not overcome.
Although vs. 4 says no more death in vs. 8 eight groups of people are thrown into the lake of fire which is still the second death.
If there is nothing remaining which defiles, works an abomination, makes a lie etc. this verse is unnecessary.
According to UR at this time everybody should be keeping the prophecy of this book. This verse assumes the opposite there must be some who are not keeping the prophecy.
Instead of saying that everyone will be saved the angel said “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still:”
This passage distinguishes between those who do the commandments and who have the right to the tree of life and those who don’t do the commandments and don’t have the right to the tree of light.
Five verses from the end of the book there are still dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, murderers, idolaters, and liars outside the city and there is no mention of salvation after this.
Do you think maybe John got it wrong?

Hmm said:

I don't think we mere mortals can ever prove anything about God. Where were you when He made the universe etc?

Click to expand...

We can if we believe His word.

Hmm said:

Mind-reading is pretty anti-intellectual too. That's not what I think and I've never said that anywhere.

Click to expand...

I didn't read your mind, I read your OP. The fallacy present in your title is merely elaborated in your OP. If you think I am wrong then provide a quote from the OP where a logically valid argument for Universalism is presented.

BNR32FAN said:

That’s a completely different message in a completely different chapter to completely different people about a completely different subject.

Click to expand...

What I quoted was the Lord's explanation of "who can be saved?" His answer was that God is powerful enough to save people. Do you think that God can save rich people but cannot save other kinds of people?

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:23–26

BNR32FAN said:

Right here your saying that the word aeon refers to millions of years instead of actual eternity

Click to expand...

I said that the age to come is commonly called eternity. In other words:

The age to come = Eternity = infinity = millions and millions of years.

Hopefully, this is clear enough.

“aionios” occurs 69x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated world only 2 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated “eternal” 42 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated “everlasting” 25 times in the N.T.
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. Jesus never uses “aionios” to refer to something ordinary/mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
= = = = = = = = = =
In twenty four [24] of the following verses aion and aionios are defined/described as eternal, everlasting, eternity etc, by paralleling or juxtaposition with other adjectives or adjectival phrases.
= = = = = = = = = =
…..Some people argue that “aion/aionios” never means eternity/eternal because they sometimes refer to things which are not eternal.
However, neither word is ever defined/described, by other adjectives or adjectival phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, in the New Testament, as in the following verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. He never used “aionios” to refer to anything ordinary or mundane that was not/could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten verses Jesus defines “aionios” as “eternal.”
In this verse the reign/basileusei, the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.”
“Aionas” by definition here means eternal.
In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.
In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.
In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.
In this verse Jesus juxtaposed “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.
In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.

[Character Limit. Continued next post]

[Previous post continued]

Paul used the word “aionios” eleven [11] times. In the following 12 verses Paul defines “aionios” as eternal.
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios life” with death. “A finite period life” is not opposite death. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”
In this verse Paul parallels “tou aionios ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.
In Rom 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, Romans, refers to God as “aionios.” Since God’s power and Godhead is aidios/eternal vs. 1:20 then God, Himself is eternal/aionios. Paul has used “aionios” synonymous with “aidios.” In this verse by definition “aionios” means eternal, everlasting.
In this passage Paul juxtaposes “aionios” with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” an indeterminate finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary” “eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios house” with “earthly house which is destroyed.” Is God going to replace our destroyed earthly house with a house which only lasts a little longer and will be destroyed at the end of an age? The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus, “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse Paul paralleled “aionios” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios” with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”
In this verse Paul parallels “aionios” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, believers do not seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aionios life” here means “eternal life.”
In this verse Paul parallels “aion” with “immortal.” “Aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios life” with “death.” A “finite period life” is not opposite “death.” “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”
In this verse Paul parallels “tou aionios ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means for ever and ever. The doubling of words for emphasis is a Hebraism see e.g. “king of kings,””Lord of Lord,””Hebrew of Hebrews,””Amen, Amen.”
In this verse “aion” is paralleled with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age,” Jesus cannot continue for only a “finite period” and simultaneously be “unchangeable.” Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”
In verse 23 Peter parallels “word of God” with “imperishable.” The same writer, Peter, in the same writing 1 Peter, verse 25, writes the word of God “endures eis ton aiona/unto the eternity. ” The word of God does not endure only a finite age long but imperishable. Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity”
In this verse Peter juxtaposed “aionios” with “little while” Jesus does not give His followers a finite period of glory then they eventually die. Thus “aionios” here, by definition, means “eternal.”
In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paralleled with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”
= = = = = = =
Footnotes ου μη/ou mé
●The double negative [ου μη] signifies in nowise, by no means. Θεωρήσῃ[theōrésé], denoting steady, protracted vision, is purposely used, because the promise contemplates the entire course of the believer's life in Christ. It is not, shall not die forever, but shall live eternally.[Vincent word studies]
● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.

Hmm said:

How did he manage to spread 11 uses of the word over 12 verses?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that did I? I don't know about other folks but I have found it very helpful to actually read something before trying to respond. Read #13 and #14 very carefully.

Hmm said:

The OP's coherent IMO but I'm open to learning if you'd care to tell me where it isn't.

Click to expand...

No you're not. I already did and you ignored it, as usual.

Again, feel free to point to a non-fallacious argument for Universalism in the OP.

Now, the Catholic view is that we should hope for the restoration of all.

Click to expand...

No it's not.