Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

OH come on! Stop stereotyping, Hmm! My reasons for not signing on the dotted line for UR aren't the same as it may be for a few others here. So, please, stop with all of this virtue signaling.

No one should have to accept your position until you can answer their questions, and as has been seen more than once, you haven't (and can't, or won't) answered, and sometimes don't feel the need to attempt to answer, some of my questions.

This kind of rhetoric and attitude that you display doesn't go far in buttressing the truth that you think your position holds.

Furthermore, there are some people here who have bona-fide cognitivie issues which may actually prevent them from being able to entertain your position to any degree of depth if they're already fixated on some point that they have taken as an 'absolute truth.' Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is and play the psychologist with folks? Can you discern those who have legitimate and logical gripes with UR from those who, from no fault of their own, and due to their personal psychological challenges, CAN'T easily sign on the dotted line with you?

So, maybe just stop short of inciting everyone who disagrees with you by your constant use of ad hominems that don't actually reflect the full human reality of the people you're engaging.

 

[Saint Steven]

No one should have to accept your position until you can answer their questions, and as has been seen more than once, you haven't (and can't, or won't) answered, and sometimes don't feel the need to attempt to answer, some of my questions.

To be fair, there are questions on both sides that are unanswerable.
Like: did God really predestine countless billions to eternal conscious torment who never even heard the name of Jesus? Or, will babies go to hell? (we get workarounds on these that don't align with the theology)

 

[Hmm]

OH come on! Stop stereotyping, Hmm! My reasons for not signing on the dotted line for UR aren't the same as it may be for a few others here.

You keep saying that I am referring to you alone when I talk about reasons why people don't believe in UR. I'm not.

So, please, stop with all of this virtue signaling

I've no idea why you think believing in universal salvation is virtue signalling. That's just an ad hominem.

No one should have to accept your position until you can answer their questions, and as has been seen more than once, you haven't (and can't, or won't) answered, and sometimes don't feel the need to attempt to answer, some of my questions.

I agree, no one should have to accept my position and equally I shouldn't have to accept your position.

Rather more ad hominems, which are becoming tedious tbh, if you think a question hasn't been answered by me or anyone else, please point it out and I'll have a go at answering it.

Furthermore, there are some people here who have bona-fide cognitivie issues which may actually prevent them from being able to entertain your position to any degree of depth if they're already fixated on some point that they have taken as an 'absolute truth.' Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is and play the psychologist with folks? Can you discern those who have legitimate and logical gripes with UR from those who, from no fault of their own, and due to their personal psychological challenges, CAN'T easily sign on the dotted line with you?

I'm not asking anyone to sign on the dotted line with me. Stop with these ad hominems before it becomes an addiction! This is a discussion forum and this thread is to discuss universalism, no more, no less.

So, maybe just stop short of inciting everyone who disagrees with you by your constant use of ad hominems that don't actually reflect the full human reality of the people you're engaging.

Inciting to what? That doesn't make sense and is just another ad hominem making... I've lost count... quite a few in all.

Just a wild thought. Have you got anything to say about Christian universalism?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To be fair, there are questions on both sides that are unanswerable.
Like: did God really predestine countless billions to eternal conscious torment who never even heard the name of Jesus? Or, will babies go to hell? (we get workarounds on these that don't align with the theology)

True. There are indeed unanswerable questions on all sides, and I firmly agree with you on this, Steven.

But if, on a purely analytic level we can ascertain and identify the fact--the unmovable fact-- that there are questions we have which are not just remaining unanswered but are actually unanswerable, then none of us can claim that such and such an idea "doesn't align with the theology" since there is no comprehensive and complete theology that any of us actually has and can refer to. What we are left with are just incomplete claims in relation to our inquiries about God.

So, if none of us today really has a fully systematic and thereby comprehensive theology, then neither can any of us posit that there is a full "theology" to refer to and by which we're failing to recognize and adhere to since none of us "knows" the full story.

So, as the existentialist that I am, I'd say that neither you nor I, nor anyone working with the traditional ECT position, actually has a fully worked out theology by which we can test all ideas or by which we'll be able to work through every question any single one of us we can concoct.

And that's just the human situation we're all in, whether we like it or not. In this case, it's best for all of us to give each other some breathing space rather than instantly decrying each other as heretics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You keep saying that I am referring to you alone when I talk about reasons why people don't believe in UR. I'm not.

No, that's not what I'm saying you're doing. I know very well you're not referring to me alone, and I didn't say you did.

I've no idea why you think believing in universal salvation is virtue signalling. That's just an ad hominem.

I also didn't say that advocating for universal salvation is virtue signalling. What I did say, or at least what I meant to say if it wasn't clear, is that the language you're using here constantly insinuates some kind of moral delinquency or insidious corruption on the part of those who may disagree with you. I don't think that if UR is true, you need to insist that folks who aver for ECT (or any other view) are somehow doing so simply because they follow some "harlot church" (...with the citation of "harlotry" coming from the writings of the UR advocates that Steven has presented).

Maybe we can dispense with all of this insinuated moral failure on either side and instead chalk it up to the fact that none of us has the final clinching knowledge that we need to understand everything about Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit?????

I agree, no one should have to accept my position and equally I shouldn't have to accept your position.

Right. And you don't see me insisting that you somehow must approach the Christian Faith as I do in order to benefit from faith in Christ, do you?

Rather more ad hominems, which are becoming tedious tbh, if you think a question hasn't been answered by me or anyone else, please point it out and I'll have a go at answering it.

No, I don't think that my criticisms qualify as ad hominems. They don't actually.

I'm not asking anyone to sign on the dotted line with me. Stop with these ad hominems before it becomes an addiction! This is a discussion forum and this thread is to discuss universalism, no more, no less.

No, this discussion thread invited us to answer the question of "What is there not to like about UR"? I would assume you're not going to ask a question such as this and expect no one to answer you, right?

Inciting to what? That doesn't make sense and is just another ad hominem making... I've lost count... quite a few in all.

No, these don't qualify as ad hominems. They're points of fact about your rhetorical strategies, not about your moral character.

Just a wild thought. Have you got anything to say about Christian universalism?

Are you wanting to know what I like about it or what I don't like about it?

 

[Hmm]

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

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

I think we're in agreement that it's important to understand what the scripture means by the "wrath" of God. I don’t see it as about God wanting to punish people in anger when they sin but as similar to the way a very loving parent will allow a prodigal child to experience the sometimes very painful and humiliating consequences of their behaviour when that's necessary for their development. God’s wrath is corrective and remedial.and if we sin, we will experience the wrath of God.

 

[Hmm]

What I did say, or at least what I meant to say if it wasn't clear, is that the language you're using here constantly insinuates some kind of moral delinquency or insidious corruption on the part of those who may disagree with you. I don't think that if UR is true, you need to insist that folks who aver for ECT (or any other view) are somehow doing so simply because they follow some "harlot church" (...with the citation of "harlotry" coming from the writings of the UR advocates that Steven has presented).

I think that many people sign up to ECT because they have been taught that it is biblical and suffer great distress from trying to reconcile this belief with their own moral compass. This is the exact opposite of insinuating that they are moral delinquents - they suffer cognitive dissonance because they hold their moral values so highly.

Maybe we can dispense with all of this insinuated moral failure on either side and instead chalk it up to the fact that none of us has the final clinching knowledge that we need to understand everything about Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit?????

I largely agree but as existentialist you'll know the story of what turned Satre away from thinking that there are no moral absolutes as he used to do. When he saw a very poor child one day sitting on the streets in Algeria he suddenly realised that he had no right whatsoever to kick that child in the face. It would be absolutely wrong. Similarly, universalists believe that eternal torment would be an absolute moral outrage.

No, this discussion thread invited us to answer the question of "What is there not to like about UR"? I would assume you're not going to ask a question such as this and expect no one to answer you, right?

Yes, I'm interested in the reasons why people object to the idea of universal restoration. That's probably the word I should have used because there are so many misconceptions surrounding the word "universalism". I had hoped saying "Christian universalism" would avoid the usual strawmen but obviously not.

Are you wanting to know what I like about it or what I don't like about it?

Either, or both of course.

 

[Lazarus Short]

This is what I have seen in forum after forum, venue after venue, discussion after discussion: one person introduces an idea that really should be attractive (at least to him/her). Everyone else, without weighing the evidence, jumps all over them. Proofs, reasons, arguments, indicators are all ignored. Discussion reverts to an emotional level, along with ad hominem attacks and character assassination. People should go and do their due diligence and see if the idea is true...instead of endlessly posting.

 

[Abaxvahl]

To be fair, there are questions on both sides that are unanswerable.
Like: did God really predestine countless billions to eternal conscious torment who never even heard the name of Jesus? Or, will babies go to hell? (we get workarounds on these that don't align with the theology)

I lean towards ECT as I think it's more probable due to it being the dominant opinion I know of in various Saints and Fathers, those who are purer can see God more clearly than I so I tend to in many things subject myself to their opinion. Of course Universalism is a possible outcome of the world (and does not subvert God's justice or any of the other argument side-stepping responses people give to it) for "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" goes both ways, and if God says "I will have mercy on all" then blessed be He.

Either way for these two questions my answers are: no, improbable but possible. What in these answers do not align with the theology?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that many people sign up to ECT because they have been taught that it is biblical and suffer great distress from trying to reconcile this belief with their own moral compass. This is the exact opposite of insinuating that they are moral delinquents - they suffer cognitive dissonance because they hold their moral values so highly.

Ok. So, we can both agree that there are "many" people (whatever that number is, whether it's a majority of them or just a minority) who have only ever subscribed to ECT since they're local church affiliation has promoted that line of thought in their minds. And we both know that this line of thought has proved to be discomfiting to some people and, for others, even traumatic (as I keep seeing from various testimonies that are evident in various atheistic media). It's sad for me to know that they've been negatively affected emotionally by some particular interpretation someone has pushed on them about 'hell.'

I largely agree but as existentialist you'll know the story of what turned Satre away from thinking that there are no moral absolutes as he used to do. When he saw a very poor child one day sitting on the streets in Algeria he suddenly realised that he had no right whatsoever to kick that child in the face. It would be absolutely wrong. Similarly, universalists believe that eternal torment would be an absolute moral outrage.

Actually, I haven't read that much Sartre, but what I have read of him and about him hasn't so far included the anecdote about his experience of seeing a child in Algeria. So, I appreciate you adding that detail for me to know about Sartre's thinking.

However, I'd have to say that while I personally appreciate Sartre's sensitivity to the child's right to 'well-being,' if this is all his ethical translation amounts to, it's a non-sequitur since it's not really enough to simply say he had a realization about some absolute. For Sartre to assert a snap-realization about what he thinks represents the value of a child unfortunately doesn't establish the presence of a moral absolute and it doesn't explain 'why' this is the case Axiologically. In sum, it's also not self-evident in any absolute way. If it were, then there'd be a lot less neglect or abuse of children by human beings in all cultures throughout the history of the world as we know it ... even today.

Yes, I'm interested in the reasons why people object to the idea of universal restoration. That's probably the word I should have used because there are so many misconceptions surrounding the word "universalism". I had hoped saying "Christian universalism" would avoid the usual strawmen but obviously not.

Personally, I don't object to the idea of UR itself. If it's true, then great! Let it ring true across the world. But if UR can be shown to be a conclusion that is drawn from incomplete inquiry and questionable methods of interpretation of the Bible, then I'd have to press for accountability in that regard. No one gets to hold an idea AND advocate for its dominance in the public sphere simply because he/she "likes" the idea. Conversely, I'd say that no one gets to deny UR or criticize it simply because he/she "dislikes" the idea. No, the truth of any matter is bigger than our emotional and seeming ethical predilections; it's a matter of Reality as it is, not as we think it to be or would like it to be.

Either, or both of course.

I think I've already touched on my questions about UR in past posts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is what I have seen in forum after forum, venue after venue, discussion after discussion: one person introduces an idea that really should be attractive (at least to him/her). Everyone else, without weighing the evidence, jumps all over them. Proofs, reasons, arguments, indicators are all ignored. Discussion reverts to an emotional level, along with ad hominem attacks and character assassination. People should go and do their due diligence and see if the idea is true...instead of endlessly posting.

This is the problem of humanity in human history. Moreover, not every idea we can ponder can be investigated fully for it's 'truth value' in Reality. Which is maybe another reason why we could learn to cut each other just a little slack.

 

[eleos1954]

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

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

John 3:16

God don't drag anyone to Himself. We are drawn to Him through Love.

The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying: “I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with unfailing kindness.” Jeremiah 31:3 (NIV)

... God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 (NKJV)

that He gave His only begotten Son,

In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:9-10 (NKJV)

He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Romans 8:32 (NKJV)

that whoever believes in Him

I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. John 12:46 (NKJV)

… Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. Acts 10:43 (NIV)

And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 22:17 (NKJV)

 

[Hmm]

For Sartre to assert a snap-realization about what he thinks represents the value of a child unfortunately doesn't establish the presence of a moral absolute and it doesn't explain 'why' this is the case Axiologically

Well, Satre used to think exactly that as you probably know but then he changed his mind. You course it doesn't explain why they are more than just subjective but you can believe in absolutes without knowing why. A Christian would say say that morality, truth, beauty etc are absolutes because they exist in the mind of God is some way, not just in our own minds.

In sum, it's also not self-evident in any absolute way. If it were, then there'd be a lot less neglect or abuse of children by human beings in all cultures throughout the history of the world as we know it ... even today.

That doesn't follow. The question of whether morality has a reality beyond our own minds or only exists as a subjective truth does not determine how people behave. Whether you believe kindness is an objective truth (such as a religious person) or a subjective one (such as a humanist), you still value it and will behave accordingly.

I think I've already touched on my questions about UR in past posts.

I only asked you what your views were because you just asked me if I wanted to hear them!

 

[Cormack]

In sum, it's also not self-evident in any absolute way. If it were, then there'd be a lot less neglect or abuse of children by human beings in all cultures throughout the history of the world as we know it ... even today.

People abusing children are no more a proof against the self evident epistemological knowledge of moral values than deaf people are a valid proof of our inability to hear sounds.

Handicapped people aren’t proof against things we have access to, like how mental or sexual problems in the population that result in the abuse of children aren’t valid proof against the vast majority of healthy people who can discern moral dimensions.

Whether you believe kindness is an objective truth (such as a religious person) or a subjective one (such as a humanist), you still value it and will behave accordingly.

While people who act as though they don’t value those things are quick to invoke our moral sensibilities in order to protect themselves from the kinds of action that they have indulged in (e.g. murderers calling the state barbaric for their use of the death penalty.)

The fact is that moral dimensions are immediately experienced, making them the best kind of knowledge available, and for people to argue against those immediately experienced things, that’s peak denial.

Whether or not Sartre had his categories in order isn’t the point of the convo, I’m assuming. From what I’ve read he knew the difference between moral things and immoral things even without the wider justification that Christians enjoy access to.

Those moral dimensions that we have access to aren’t only buttressed by how they’re discerned, they also promote ideas like the (1) punishment fitting the crime, (2) reformation of the wicked and (proportionally sound) (3) reparations for the victimised.

Those are all ideas that eternal conscious torment undermines. In short, eternal conscious torment extracting the weeping and gnashing of teeth by a supposed loving God scandalises our moral sensibilities because it’s an immoral idea.

Our moral intuitions tip us off to the absurdity of eternally tormenting finite creatures, to sustain their lives for the only goal of “punishing” them and extracting their misery for forever.

Returning again to those 3 valuable moral beliefs that our epistemic senses tend to generate in healthy adults. . .

(1) The finite crime receiving eternal punishment is grossly excessive.

There’s (2) no mind to reforming the lost sinner, only to endlessly extract their grief.

(3) While the victims, if they have truly forgiven their tormentors, they wouldn’t want the kind of grossly inappropriate payback that was being inflicted on the wicked.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

People abusing children are no more a proof against the self evident epistemological knowledge of moral values than deaf people are a valid proof of our inability to hear sounds.

And which class in Philosophy did you learn this in, Cormack? Or was it in a theological class that ignored the significance of, and the paradox of, the Akedah?

Please know, too, that your comments here don't actually address the specific nuances of the critical statements I made to Hmm over my past several posts in this thread. Also, please address the specifics of my comments in an exacting, direct engagement without instead circumventing them by way of rhetorical tactics and other obfuscation. Thanks!

Handicapped people aren’t proof against things we have access to, like how mental or sexual problems in the population that result in the abuse of children aren’t valid proof against the vast majority of healthy people who can discern moral dimensions.

My response?: Same as just above-- your comments here don't actually address the specific nuances of the statements which I've made to Hmm above.

While people who act as though they don’t value those things are quick to invoke our moral sensibilities in order to protect themselves from the kinds of action that they have indulged in (e.g. murderers calling the state barbaric for their use of the death penalty.)

The fact is that moral dimensions are immediately experienced, making them the best kind of knowledge available, and for people to argue against those immediately experienced things, that’s peak denial.

Whether or not Sartre had his categories in order isn’t the point of the convo, I’m assuming. From what I’ve read he knew the difference between moral things and immoral things even without the wider justification that Christians enjoy access to.

Those moral dimensions that we have access to aren’t only buttressed by how they’re discerned, they also promote ideas like the (1) punishment fitting the crime, (2) reformation of the wicked and (proportionally sound) (3) reparations for the victimised.

Those are all ideas that eternal conscious torment undermines. In short, eternal conscious torment extracting the weeping and gnashing of teeth by a supposed loving God scandalises our moral sensibilities because it’s an immoral idea.

Our moral intuitions tip us off to the absurdity of eternally tormenting finite creatures, to sustain their lives for the only goal of “punishing” them and extracting their misery for forever.

Returning again to those 3 valuable moral beliefs that our epistemic senses tend to generate in healthy adults. . .

(1) The finite crime receiving eternal punishment is grossly excessive.

There’s (2) no mind to reforming the lost sinner, only to endlessly extract their grief.

(3) While the victims, if they have truly forgiven their tormentors, they wouldn’t want the kind of grossly inappropriate payback that was being inflicted on the wicked.

Why are we even tapping Sartre here in the first place? I've never mentioned Sartre. So why bring him as somehow being a defining figure in this ongoing discussion? From my vantage point, your doing so is an unnecessary tangent that derails the thrust of the thread.

 

[Cormack]

In sum, it's also not self-evident in any absolute way. If it were, then there'd be a lot less neglect or abuse of children by human beings in all cultures throughout the history of the world as we know it ... even today.

We might as well argue ‘whelp whelp whelp, there are so many traffic accidents. Therefore, this proves there’s no knowledge of “driving” inside all of those people on the motorway. This knowledge of “driving” isn’t present in any way, car crashes prove that.

Lewis Hamilton doesn’t know anything about “driving,” I’ve seen far too many car crashes and fender benders in my time to believe that.’

 

[Cormack]

the Akedah?

Bless you

My opinion is shared by Alvin Plantinga, he’s been called one of the greatest living philosophers. Maybe you’ve heard about him in class, school boy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bless you

My opinion is shared by Alvin Plantinga, he’s been called one of the greatest living philosophers. Maybe you’ve heard about him in class, school boy.

Oh, I've definitely heard about him ... among quite a few others as well.
Should I be afraid, school master?

 

[Hmm]

Why are we even tapping Sartre here in the first place? I've never mentioned Sartre. So why bring him as somehow being a defining figure in this ongoing discussion? From my vantage point, your doing so is an unnecessary tangent that derails the thrust of the thread.

It was I who brought Sartre into the conversation and this was because you've said a few times you are an existentialist, were saying that moral values are relativistic and so I thought you would appreciate and relate to the story of where Sartre moved away from that view towards seeing that moral values were absolute. I was obviously mistaken.

The point I was trying to make is that to many, if not to you, the notion of eternal torment/torture (or even a momentary torment/torture) is an absolute moral evil. No ifs, no buts. Christian universalism takes this view and in addition argues that Scripture does not support the idea of ECT.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We might as well argue ‘whelp whelp whelp, there are so many traffic accidents. Therefore, this proves there’s no knowledge of “driving” inside all of those people on the motorway. This knowledge of “driving” isn’t present in any way, car crashes prove that.

Lewis Hamilton doesn’t know anything about “driving,” I’ve seen far too many car crashes and fender benders in my time to believe that.’

What does Lewis Hamilton know about the Law of the Jungle? Anything?