Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

Interesting that the discussion of UR is met with so much rancor. They will fight tooth and nail to keep their forever burning hell. Makes no sense.

Most people don't understand Christian universalism and think it's pluralistic and heretical. But actually it's Christocentric, was probably the majority view of the early church and it wasn't universalism that was declared heretical but some pagan views to do with the transmigration of the soul that were wrongly associated with the universalist Origen.

The reason for all the rancour is that when things like this are pointed out, it's felt as a threat. If someone believe that ECT is a core part of Christianity, they won't be able to hear it being questioned without feeling that their entire faith is under attack.

The thing is is that Christian universalism is an inherently attractive vision in which God achieves his loving purpose of redeeming the whole creation. Compared to the Western infernalist tradition in which most people end up in an eternal hell, universalism has the stronger view of God's love, grace,.mercy and justice. It has the stronger story of His victory over evil and the achievement of Christ on the cross. It makes the most sense of scripture: who can read passages like 1 Corinthians 15:28: “And, when all things have been subordinated to him, then will the Son himself also be subordinated to the one who has subordinated all things to him, so that God may be all in all.” and not believe it is talking about UR?

No-one likes to admit that they are wrong. It makes people feel stupid and that their life has been wasted. But Christian universalism gives us all the hope that we really need and this is why the tradition has survived all attempts to squash it and is still around today as a minority, though growing, view.

 

[Andrewn]

John 12
32And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (drag?) everyone to Myself.


Take the verses you listed and substitute drag for draw and see if you think this gives a picture of a loving God.

ie ... John 6:44

44“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws (drags?) him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

He invites .... He don't drag anyone.

Strong’s Definitions G138; to drag (literally or figuratively):—draw. Compare G1667.

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. to draw, drag off
   
   
2. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

James 4

Drawing Near to God

7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9Grieve, mourn, and weep. Turn your laughter to mourning, and your joy to gloom. 10Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you.

This is a completely different Greek word:

Strong’s Definitions G1451; to make near, i.e. (reflexively) approach:—approach, be at hand, come (draw) near, be (come, draw) nigh.

Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. to bring near, to join one thing to another
   
   
2. to draw or come near to, to approach

 

[Saint Steven]

My entrance into this discussion was to make sure the character of God was represented in a balanced way and to make sure that scripture was being respected.

I think that if these two are in place the issue of universalism solves very quickly.

To suggest that translations across the board are in error opens the door to all sorts of rabbit holes and as DA mentioned the Mormons and JW's are good examples. of exactly this.

We maintain that erroneous and contradictory assumptions are being made about the character of God. Your "balanced" view is only to maintain the status quo, which we are taking issue with.

A majority opinion is only that, an opinion. What you call "a balanced view" is a clear contradiction. Incinerating living humans for all eternity with no hope of escape is not love in any sense of the word.

There are biblical contradictions and errors beyond just those highlighted in reference to UR. And facing the truth about this is a sobering task. To put on blinders and recite the party line does nothing to address these issues.

 

[Hmm]

We maintain that erroneous and contradictory assumptions are being made about the character of God.

Indeed. I'm sure God could do without someone representing His character by holding up ECT as it's reflection rather than love and grace.

 

[Saint Steven]

What you claim totally misses the point.

It isnt a matter of fighting for a forever burning hell - it is a matter of remaining faithful to scripture and letting God be God - then the matter settles very quick.

Sorry, I won't sit by with arms folded while God is being slandered by the larger group. Nor will I fail to speak up for the victims of spiritual extortion. Believe or burn.

Is that what we call a free will choice? Our heavenly Father is being likened to a gangster godfather, making us an offer we can't refuse. And sold to us as a "balanced" view. Seriously? Basically a two-faced god that cannot be trusted.

 

[Saint Steven]

... in this book of his you've posted, Steven.

Thanks for checking it out. His name is Eby, not Elby.
I couldn't figure out who you were writing about at first. - lol

That was the book recommended to me, and where I started. I haven't even completed that book as of yet. I did read this one in entirety.

Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin

 

[Hmm]

Sorry, I won't sit by with arms folded while God is being slandered by the larger group. Nor will I fail to speak up for the victims of spiritual extortion. Believe or burn.

Is that what we call a free will choice? Our heavenly Father is being likened to a gangster godfather, making us an offer we can't refuse. And sold to us as a "balanced" view. Seriously? Basically a two-faced god that cannot be trusted.

I think when someone claims that they are "faithful to scripture" and everyone with a different view isn't, they've lost the argument.

 

[Saint Steven]

The reason for all the rancour is that when things like this are pointed out, it's felt as a threat. If someone believe that ECT is a core part of Christianity, they won't be able to hear it being questioned without feeling that their entire faith is under attack.

Great post, thanks.
I was thinking about the emotional aspect yesterday, but failed to write anything on the forum.

We are often accused of giving in to emotionalism in reference to UR. The "Daddy" aspect was attacked recently. (I loved your response about Abba = Daddy) But what is being pandered as a "balanced" view is cloaked emotionlessness. A calloused view about the supposed plight of "those who hate God". (as if they have it coming)

And the obvious contradiction of the God who requires us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43), incinerating his. Is God incapable of living up to the standards he imposed upon us?

These folks make God out to be worse than a pagan, or tax collector (traitor). See Matt. 5:46-47 below. What they claim is a balanced view.

Matthew 5:43-48 NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[Andrewn]

Yes I read the whole article and it expresses my position quite regarding the wrath of God.

As I had previously said - we don't just have a big daddy in the sky - and that truth has upset some readers - maybe they could read the article and comment.

Thanks Andrew...

Good. Occasionally, we hear from people who consider God to be a revengeful personality, absolutely disgusted with people who sin and hating non-Christians. When we say that God is not out to punish those sinners, we get the response that God is holy and does not follow human concepts of morality. But the fact is that divine morality is even higher than human morality. Here are some observations from the article:

"We see this even when our own little human fragments of morality and goodness encounter true evil—when we are brought face to face with such evils as the Nazi’s Final Solution of the Jewish Question (i.e. the Holocaust), or the killing fields of Pol Pot or the beheadings of ISIS. We are repelled and feel moral indignation at such atrocities. Love for the individuals committing the atrocities does nothing to diminish our moral outrage at the acts themselves."

Please note that the disgust and anger are directed toward "such atrocities," toward "the acts themselves" and that there is "love for the individuals committing the atrocities."

"God’s zeal to avenge, His wrath when confronted with evil is nothing other than His manifested moral goodness—the same goodness which delights to bless the righteous, to forgive the penitent, and to protect the orphan and the widow. To say that God is love—i.e. that God is good—implies both His zeal to protect the helpless and His zeal to avenge the helpless when they are struck down and violated."

The second observation is that the objective of God is to avenge the oppressed: to protect the orphan and the widow. His "Daddyship" cannot be overemphasized. The objective is therapeutic. It is not to torment the offender forever.

"And we want God to be effectual, especially when it comes to dealing with our own sins. God’s wrath at sin is the expression of His moral determination to banish sin from the cosmos He made. While that may be bad news for the impenitent wicked of the earth, it is good news for the fallen but penitent—that is, for us. For we want and need a God who can banish sin from our hearts, a God who will not stop or be satisfied with us until every ounce and atom of sin, disease, and darkness have been rooted out of our hearts. Only by such a relentless war against our sin can we be fully and finally healed and whole."

A big "amen" to this. We need God to heal our addictive sins. This is the 3rd observation.

God is a consuming fire (Heb 12:29). This is an often quoted verse in discussions about God's wrath. He is out to burn the dross and purify the creation that is both good and loved. I will finish by quoting the last paragraph of the article without comments.

"God hates sin and takes action against it wherever He finds it, just as a good physician might hate cancer in his patients and take action to cure it. Everyone in the whole wide world stands in need of such curing. “May our God come and not keep silence! Fire devours before Him and it is very tempestuous around Him” (Psalm 50:3). May that fire of wrath and love devour the sin lurking in us. May it burn up the thorns of our transgressions and enlighten us to proclaim the true God."

 

[Saint Steven]

I think when someone claims that they are "faithful to scripture" and everyone with a different view isn't, they've lost the argument.

Absolutely!
And this aspect needs to be discussed (uncovered).
The idea that someone would claim that God told them this, or that. (thus playing "the God card" to end the discussion)
Or that somehow their personal interpretation of the scripture is "God speaking".
Rather than stay in the discussion (they are clearly losing), they will quip, "You can take it up with God."

 

[Hmm]

Great post, thanks.
I was thinking about the emotional aspect yesterday, but failed to write anything on the forum.

We are often accused of giving in to emotionalism in reference to UR. The "Daddy" aspect was attacked recently. (I loved your response about Abba = Daddy) But what is being pandered as a "balanced" view is cloaked emotionlessness. A calloused view about the supposed plight of "those who hate God". (as if they have it coming)

And the obvious contradiction of the God who requires us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43), incinerating his. Is God incapable of living up to the standards he imposed upon us?

These folks make God out to be worse than a pagan, or tax collector (traitor). What they claim is a balanced view.

Matthew 5:43-48 NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Agreed. For anyone to dismiss the concern that loved ones may suffer an eternal hell as mere "sentimentality" it demonstrates deep emotional illiteracy.

 

[Hmm]

Absolutely!
And this aspect needs to be discussed (uncovered).
The idea that someone would claim that God told them this, or that. (thus playing "the God card" to end the discussion)
Or that somehow their personal interpretation of the scripture is "God speaking".
Rather than stay in the discussion (they are clearly losing), they will quip, "You can take it up with God."

I shouldn't but I find it funny really

 

[Saint Steven]

Agreed. For anyone to dismiss the concern that loved ones may suffer an eternal hell as mere "sentimentality" it demonstrates deep emotional illiteracy.

Wow, "emotional illiteracy", what a great term for it. - lol

Lamentations 4:3 NIV
Even jackals offer their breasts to nurse their young, but my people have become heartless like ostriches in the desert.

 

[Saint Steven]

I shouldn't but I find it funny really

Intellectual dishonesty really. No one will admit that they are wrong, or don't know.

 

[Andrewn]

This claim raises a serious question. This discussion includes the claim by some that bible translations across the board have been in error. This amounts to God ignoring the prayers of the scholars for inspiration and accuracy, stood aloof and allowed the whole world to be deceived. Personally I cant conceive of my God allowing that. Unless the Spirit was totally withdrawn and no longer guided His saints into all truth. Comments?

God allows a lot of evil in the world.

But translations are not necessarily in error, the adjective "eternal" itself is beautiful if it understood correctly to mean "of eternity" or "belonging to eternity." Here is the definition of "eternity":

"Eternity, in common parlance, means infinite time that never ends (or the quality, condition or fact of being eternal). Classical philosophy, however, defines eternity as what exists outside time - as in describing supernatural beings and forces."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity

If we understand "eternity" to mean infinite time, then "eternal" is misunderstood to mean "endless."

But if we understood "eternity" as a reference to the Kingdom of God, to Heavenly Jerusalem, to the Age to Come, then "eternal" means "otherworldly" or "belonging to God." This is how I understand the word "eternal."

 

[Saint Steven]

Most people don't understand Christian universalism and think it's pluralistic and heretical. But actually it's Christocentric, was probably the majority view of the early church and it wasn't universalism that was declared heretical but some pagan views to do with the transmigration of the soul that were wrongly associated with the universalist Origen.

Right.
I was just reading how Augustine had infused Western/Latin church doctrine with the teachings of Plato in reference to the afterlife. Thus imposing the flavor of the month on Christianity. Which is exactly what the article we were given to read (Why we need a God of wrath) is accusing us of doing. (imposing modern thinking on God) When that is the source of the Infernalist doctrine. Seems a bit hypocritical.

 

[Hmm]

Right.
I was just reading how Augustine had infused Western/Latin church doctrine with the teachings of Plato in reference to the afterlife. Thus imposing the flavor of the month on Christianity. Which is exactly what the article we were given to read (Why we need a God of wrath) is accusing us of doing. (imposing modern thinking on God) When that is the source of the Infernalist doctrine. Seems a bit hypocritical.

Yes, it's very ironic. The EO church's equivalent to Augustine is St. Gregory of Nyssa, who was a universalist and who made a major contribution towards drawing up the Nicene creed - a very important figure, and this is why the EO church always seems to be so much wiser in so many areas than the Western church, particularly the more idiosyncratic of the Protestant denominations.

 

[Andrewn]

So, it is rather surprising to see an article like this in an Orthodox journal.

Which is exactly what the article we were given to read (Why we need a God of wrath) is accusing us of doing. (imposing modern thinking on God) When that is the source of the Infernalist doctrine. Seems a bit hypocritical.

I get the impression that you didn't like the article that I suggested.

But reality is that the word "wrath" is used 36 times in the NT and in most of these it describes the wrath of God or Christ. In Romans alone, the wrath of God is mentioned in chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, and 13! It must be important.

We cannot have a Bible-based discussion about the character of God without a proper understanding of what the "wrath of God means."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for checking it out. His name is Eby, not Elby.
I couldn't figure out who you were writing about at first. - lol

ok. You got me on that one, bro. ...... eby. eby. eby.

That was the book recommended to me, and where I started. I haven't even completed that book as of yet. I did read this one in entirety.

Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin

Yeah. I know. You've already cited that one by Allin and recommended it to me. I've looked through it, too, a few weeks ago and the arguments between Allin and Eby look very similar. Very similar.

 

[Saint Steven]

We cannot have a Bible-based discussion about the character of God without a proper understanding of what the "wrath of God means."

On that point we agree.
Apologies about my reaction to the article. I couldn't get past the introduction which put the whole thing on a slippery slope for me. As my comments will attest.

The idea that a "God of wrath" is being dismissed on the grounds of current sociopolitical sentiments, as it relates to Christian Universalism, is nonsense. Christian Universalism has its roots in the early church, not in current sociopolitical ideology.

But my intention was not to attempt to put an end to the discussion on the "wrath" of God. By all means, we should continue.