Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

Does this not just prove that the word represented by "age-during" can mean unending in certain contexts? For the Scriptures say we inherit the Kingdom and will reign with Christ, and the Creed says the Kingdom has no end, so we will have no end, and this must be the age referred to here for the righteous.

Anything defined as an age has a beginning and an end.
The word used here is Aionios, which means eon. Video explanation below.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Here's what "the Word of God" says.

Matthew 25:46 - Young's Literal Translation
And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

Aionios, the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in the Bible (eternal hell?)

 

[Abaxvahl]

Anything defined as an age has a beginning and an end.
The word used here is Aionios, which means eon. Video explanation below.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Here's what "the Word of God" says.

Matthew 25:46 - Young's Literal Translation
And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

Aionios, the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in the Bible (eternal hell?)

Very informative video I watched all of it. So what I gather is the life of the righteous is considered eternal because there is a verse which says they do not die anymore or otherwise, for he excepts this as I do in the same sense. What I do not get is why it could not be parallel with an eternal damnation, or what St. Matthew refers to. I agree also with the translations he proved the case, but I do not see how he justifies excepting life eternal just on St. Luke, he also does not explain how exactly St. Matthew is not referring to the same thing in chapter 25.

On top of that, does his exception not prove that it can mean eternal? He allows this one use to be unending.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Very informative video I watched all of it. So what I gather is the life of the righteous is considered eternal because there is a verse which says they do not die anymore or otherwise, for he excepts this as I do in the same sense. What I do not get is why it could not be parallel with an eternal damnation, or what St. Matthew refers to. I agree also with the translations he proved the case, but I do not see how he justifies excepting life eternal just on St. Luke, he also does not explain how exactly St. Matthew is not referring to the same thing in chapter 25.

On top of that, does his exception not prove that it can mean eternal? He allows this one use to be unending.

It can be a confusing matter. Because of these same people their destruction and death are also talked about. Eternal punishment would have to mean eternal life, even if a very unpleasant eternal life. But the wages of sin are death and so on.

 

[Saint Steven]

Very informative video I watched all of it. So what I gather is the life of the righteous is considered eternal because there is a verse which says they do not die anymore or otherwise, for he excepts this as I do in the same sense. What I do not get is why it could not be parallel with an eternal damnation, or what St. Matthew refers to. I agree also with the translations he proved the case, but I do not see how he justifies excepting life eternal just on St. Luke, he also does not explain how exactly St. Matthew is not referring to the same thing in chapter 25.

On top of that, does his exception not prove that it can mean eternal? He allows this one use to be unending.

From what I gather, eternity will be subdivided into many ages. The age for correction will not be for eternity. That would be pointless.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The proof is in the pudding. It doesn't matter how you got there. You are defending the status quo.

Maybe the status quo is right some times?

 

[Abaxvahl]

From what I gather, eternity will be subdivided into many ages. The age for correction will not be for eternity. That would be pointless.

Alright that makes sense. I remember reading a great book on Annihilationism which spoke of that as a common eschatological opinion derived from the Fathers and other theologians, where there is a sort of cyclical repeating of ages, but this is unending. It makes sense to me for "Holy Holy Holy is the Lord" is repeatedly said, but each one is new, so it is like a cycle which is unending. Not to mention there is some change age-to-age in the Saints even, for they always grow more and more divinized for God is infinite and we will infinite approach Him, for some Father somewhere says against God we are still imperfect and another that the Commandment of love is infinite, so one grows in it always.

So: cycles of worship age-to-age, cycles of growth in love age-to-age. And the video you linked gives a beautiful verse to prove it also, "the Lord reigns from age to age."

So then the only contention is whether or not there is correction and reparation or if there is life and damnation, damnation being an incorrigible state. That to my knowledge centers around whether or not those who are resurrected are able to repent, and ideas about the state of the body after that and the state of the soul. I'll have to look into what is said on that and then I'll be able to know with certainty whether or not correction is possible.

Then the second contention, even if correction is impossible, is whether or not any die in a state of mortal sin (that is, they will be damned and not corrected by this state), and that alone will be unknown.

 

[Abaxvahl]

It can be a confusing matter. Because of these same people their destruction and death are also talked about. Eternal punishment would have to mean eternal life, even if a very unpleasant eternal life. But the wages of sin are death and so on.

Indeed, eternal punishment would have to be that. But it makes sense to me if it truly occurs for "death" is in essence just "separation" to me, and is not non-existence (for Jesus died and did not cease to exist, nor was His divinity separated from His body or soul, which both continued to exist). So then what is the way they would be separated? From the indwelling life of God, but they would still exist.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Here's what "the Word of God" says.

Matthew 25:46 - Young's Literal Translation
And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

Matthew 25:46
New American Standard Bible

46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

You have chosen a non-mainstream translation that suits your theory.

 

[Fervent]

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."

Evaluating what the English word means doesn't really shed light on the question, especially as the Greek word used is one that exclusively relates to time so the proposed alternative reading is not present within the original language. Now, that is not to say the Greek word necessarily entails infinity as the word marks time based upon content rather than duration. A fair reading could be "age of punishment" if we were looking at the word alone, but the context of the passages is what ultimately determines the intended scope. Looking at the pericope, the central question Jesus seems to be answering is what the final state of creation will be with Jesus speaking of a final judgment separating out the sheep from the goats. For the sheep, they move on to eternal life. The goats to eternal perdition. To say that eternal perdition ends, would entail that etternal life ends since these two are presented in parallel as opposites. So while it is conceivable based upon the semantics of the word for the punishment to eventually end, it is not justifiable to infer that those who go to eternal perdition will one day transition into eternal life, as both are concurrent terminal states.

 

[Cormack]

Should I be afraid, school master?

You should be informed by the message, not afraid. The fact is that leaning on disfunction in an effort to undermine the healthy faculties of most people is a bad take.

If it’s a bad take you should try and adopt a better one when someone much more savvy and academically astute than yourself comes along with a better one (i.e. Alvin P.)

Obviously I’m not going to read the entire bulk of your message history or the convos history for the sake of extracting what you believe are valuable “nuances,” since most of the points you’ve made (in my experience) are of a similar quality to the view I just corrected.

You’re very flappable, sir.

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?

Well the achoo being paradoxical can mean either one of two things, depending on if you’re using a philosophically literate use of the word paradox. Paradoxes are either (1) apparent contradictions that turn out to be true when investigated, or they’re (2) “mysteries” and an occasion for the Christians to throw themselves into greater depths of double speak.

 

[Hmm]

Then the second contention, even if correction is impossible, is whether or not any die in a state of mortal sin (that is, they will be damned and not corrected by this state), and that alone will be unknown.

Did you mean possible?

I'm not Catholic and I don't fully understand the church's concept of mortal sin but there are hopeful Catholic universalists such as Hans Urs Von Balthasar which suggests that a hope in universal salvation and the Catholic concept of mortal sin can be tied together somehow.

In this quote from Fr Herbert McCabe, he describes how he understands mortal sin. It seems to me that this understanding goes very well with Christian universalism. What do you think?

"Now there is all the difference in the world between being lazy or a nuisance to your comrades and betraying the whole project; that is the difference between venial and mortal sin. As St Thomas says: one is about how you do the job; the other is about not doing it at all, but something else. The job, of course, is loving God.
There is a lovely passage, one of my favourites, in which he says that your love for God can never gradually cool, or be chipped away or slowly diminished. It can only be totally lost by mortal sin; venial sin is not a matter of cooling and loving God less — well, what’s wrong with it then? It is a matter of loving the things of this world too much, perhaps dangerously too much, and failing to express and grow in your love of God.
Venial sins all carry an ecclesial health warning: sinning can seriously damage your health (your spiritual health).
Every sin, in any meaning of the word, has two sides to it. On the one hand it is some kind of neglect of God’s love — whether a total rejection (and option for something else) as in mortal sin, or simply not expressing your gratitude enough in your daily life as in venial sin — on the other hand all sin involves an attachment to, even addiction to other lesser good things, the things of this world.
Forgiveness of sins deals with the first part — whether it is the miraculous grace of conversion and contrition by which we are turned back to God from mortal sin, or the grace of increasing charity by which we pull ourselves together after venial sins.
Forgiveness is what matters most of all; to be forgiven, to be contrite for mortal sin is the most tremendous thing that could happen to you in your life — so of course it is very easy. You do not have to work at being forgiven; you have only to accept it, to believe in the forgiveness of God in Christ, in his eternal unconditional love for you."

 

[Abaxvahl]

Did you mean possible?

I'm not Catholic and I don't fully understand the church's concept of mortal sin but there are hopeful Catholic universalists such as Hans Urs Von Balthasar which suggests that a hope in universal salvation and the Catholic concept of mortal sin can be tied together somehow.

In this quote from Fr Herbert McCabe, he describes how he understands mortal sin. It seems to me that this understanding goes very well with Christian universalism. What do you think?

"Now there is all the difference in the world between being lazy or a nuisance to your comrades and betraying the whole project; that is the difference between venial and mortal sin. As St Thomas says: one is about how you do the job; the other is about not doing it at all, but something else. The job, of course, is loving God.
There is a lovely passage, one of my favourites, in which he says that your love for God can never gradually cool, or be chipped away or slowly diminished. It can only be totally lost by mortal sin; venial sin is not a matter of cooling and loving God less — well, what’s wrong with it then? It is a matter of loving the things of this world too much, perhaps dangerously too much, and failing to express and grow in your love of God.
Venial sins all carry an ecclesial health warning: sinning can seriously damage your health (your spiritual health).
Every sin, in any meaning of the word, has two sides to it. On the one hand it is some kind of neglect of God’s love — whether a total rejection (and option for something else) as in mortal sin, or simply not expressing your gratitude enough in your daily life as in venial sin — on the other hand all sin involves an attachment to, even addiction to other lesser good things, the things of this world.
Forgiveness of sins deals with the first part — whether it is the miraculous grace of conversion and contrition by which we are turned back to God from mortal sin, or the grace of increasing charity by which we pull ourselves together after venial sins.
Forgiveness is what matters most of all; to be forgiven, to be contrite for mortal sin is the most tremendous thing that could happen to you in your life — so of course it is very easy. You do not have to work at being forgiven; you have only to accept it, to believe in the forgiveness of God in Christ, in his eternal unconditional love for you."

I mean impossible. For now that I realize the aeon/eternal debate is yet another distraction from the what I now see as the two points that are relevant to Universalism:

1) Whether or not it is possible for someone after they die (including here their Resurrection) to repent.
2) If the above is impossible, whether or not anyone dies in a spiritual dead state (meaning they will remain so for eternity because they can not repent, and this is eternal damnation).

To my knowledge it is considered usually, for reasons that I do not know, impossible for people to repent after death, even when they are raised again. Somehow we become "locked" on either loving God or being at enmity with God at death, and I need to read to see why this is the common opinion. Many Universalists seem to think this is not the case. But even if they think it is the case then they'll deny that anyone dies in a spiritually dead state.

Fr. Herbert's understanding of it makes sense to me and is a good explanation. The thing being that anyone who dies in said state of mortal sin is damned in Catholicism, so if everyone is in fact saved that means no one died like that.

 

[Cormack]

1) Whether or not it is possible for someone after they die (including here their Resurrection) to repent.

Like in the case of many convos here, if you haven’t already, I recommend looking into the harrowing of hell. I do know that some of the usual language during the mass is that Jesus “descended into hell,” and that whole tradition is tied up with post mortem repentance.

 

[Hmm]

I mean impossible

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Fr. Herbert's understanding of it makes sense to me and is a good explanation. The thing being that anyone who dies in said state of mortal sin is damned in Catholicism, so if everyone is in fact saved that means no one died like that.

I don't believe that is what he's saying because clearly people do commit mortal sin. The way I read the quote is that even mortal sin can be forgiven. We need to repent but because committing the mortal sin means we have turned away from God we can't do this ourselves. So God does it for us - He gives us a repentent heart as an outflowing if his grace. This is why he says "to be forgiven, to be contrite for mortal sin is the most tremendous thing that could happen to you in your life — so of course it is very easy." It's "easy" because all we have to do to be forgiven is to receive forgiveness as a gift and to realise God's unconditional love for us.

I don't know how well this ties in with your understanding of mortal sin. I think this issue for you hangs on that.

 

[Ceallaigh]

From what I gather, eternity will be subdivided into many ages. The age for correction will not be for eternity. That would be pointless.

It seems that's pretty much the only way UR could play out.

That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 2:7

 

[Andrewn]

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)

I really do not disagree with you. All I'm saying is that love has power, like a tug that morally (not forcibly) drags people to change their attitude.

Are you familiar with Abelard's Moral Influence Theory of Atonement? The cross does not only show humans the true nature of God's love, it also has power that is sufficient to pull us in and atone.

I've already explained and analyzed the Greek words applied. Love has power, this is all I'm trying to say.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Why in this discussion does the matter of God hardening the hearts of the wicked not acknowledged?

Why is Hell being portrayed as a place where God administers punishment rather than simply man suffering the consequences of refusing Love and therefore choosing a loveless destiny along with like minded loveless individuals. This in itself is a place of torment yet not of God' doing. In this case the suggestion of Hell being contrary to the concept of a Loving God collapses. The suffering then is eternally self chosen and self afflicted.

The Father the Son and the Spirit warned and pleaded in various ways but His Loving Voice was shunned.

 

[Saint Steven]

Maybe the status quo is right some times?

Yes. With the emphasis on "maybe" and "sometimes". - lol

Saint Steven said: ↑
The proof is in the pudding. It doesn't matter how you got there. You are defending the status quo.

 

[Saint Steven]

So then the only contention is whether or not there is correction and reparation or if there is life and damnation, damnation being an incorrigible state. That to my knowledge centers around whether or not those who are resurrected are able to repent, and ideas about the state of the body after that and the state of the soul. I'll have to look into what is said on that and then I'll be able to know with certainty whether or not correction is possible.

Then the second contention, even if correction is impossible, is whether or not any die in a state of mortal sin (that is, they will be damned and not corrected by this state), and that alone will be unknown.

Great questions. (I appreciate your perspective as well)
If we look at the end result we can determine what happened.

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection) Scriptural support below.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

 

[Saint Steven]

You have chosen a non-mainstream translation that suits your theory.

Are you claiming the Bible is NOT the "Word of God"?
Are you questioning the direction of the Holy Spirit in translation?
Are you claiming that God would allow such a thing to happen?
Looks like that saw cuts both ways too.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Here's what "the Word of God" says.

Matthew 25:46 - Young's Literal Translation
And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'