Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[ozso]

Have you Biblically demonstrated they are not?

I'm looking though my Bible, and I'm not seeing the Book of Clare73 anywhere

 

[Jipsah]

Have you Biblically demonstrated they are not?

Just as soon as you prove that I'm not rightwise king born of all England. Sorry, but "prove it isn't" whatever is always ridiculous.

 

[ozso]

Just as soon as you prove that I'm not rightwise king born of all England. Sorry, but "prove it isn't" whatever is always ridiculous.

Who made that rule? Prove it.

 

[Hmm]

It is remarkable how common this kind of fallacy is today, although it was the same sort of anti-intellectual optimism that led the People of God astray in the time of Jeremiah.

Anti-intellectual, that's a new one. I'll add it to the list, thanks.

Just to clarify, do you mean anti-intellectual in the sense that the universalist Gregory of Nyssa, the Father of Fathers, was anti-intellectual (according to your theory)?

 

[Hmm]

Hitler's been brought up quite a lot as evidence against universalism - How can he possibly be saved alongside somebody like let's say Martin Luther King? Wouldn't that be negating the suffering of his tens of millions of victims? I don't think there are any definitive answers to questions such as these but I wonder if this makes any sense: suppose you as a parent/care giver have two children, one who's athletic, bright and sociable who you you don't feel particularly worried about and another who has serious needs such as mobility, emotional or mental health needs.

Wouldn't you as the care giver do your best to meet their individually needs? You wouldn't just give up on the more demanding child. I was wondering whether God sees us in the same kind of way and even though we may write off Hitler types, God doesn't because we are all His children.

 

[Strong in Him]

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians?

It doesn't annoy me; it puzzles me why anyone teaches it.
There are a number of teachings that we should repent now, while we can. Why would Jesus have taught that if the truth was "live as you like, you'll be saved in the end"?

Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine?

It is.
His love is so great that he will not force anyone to believe in, and love, him.

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?

Only faith the size of a mustard seed is needed.
If someone says, "will you accept Jesus?" or if he himself were to say that; all that's needed is the word "yes". Faith and understanding don't come all at once, but once we belong to Jesus he will never let us go and no one can snatch us from his hands.
We don't need to, and can't, "do enough to appropriate the grace of God" - it is there for all; waiting for a response.

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,

Not necessarily.
But Jesus says "repent, believe in me and have eternal life". The Bible says that those who do not have eternal life will perish, John 3:16, John 3:36, 1 John 5:12 - why would it say that if in fact it meant, "don't worry if you don't want to believe in Jesus now; you'll still be saved one day"?

It's not so much "why follow Jesus?" but "why would Jesus have told people to repent and have eternal life now", if it isn't necessary? He said to the rich man, "you fool; this night your soul will be required of you"; not "well it was a waste of time hoarding money, but you will be saved anyway."

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...

"If we don't MANAGE to receive God's grace in this life", implies, to me, that there has not been the chance to receive it - the Gospel hasn't been preached, or fully understood. God would know and understand if that had been the case and would, imo, judge accordingly.
That is not at all the same as saying, "I reject God, I'm not going to accept him or think about him now; he will save me/give me another chance after death because he is love".

”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)

Everyone will see, and recognise, Jesus; even those who rejected him in this life. That doesn't mean they will be able to repent and be saved.
Imo, that's what hell will be - knowing without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus died for your sins, but also knowing that you rejected that forgiveness when it was offered, and it is now too late. Knowing that Jesus is Lord and that all honour and glory is due to him; the one that you hated/rejected.

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.

Except that the NT says otherwise.
In the NT, you are for Jesus, or against him; in the light or in the darkness; have eternal life, or don't. Those who reject God's amazing, free gift of eternal life, Romans 6:23, cannot live with him when they die. If people die in their sins, with unforgiven sin, how and why would a Holy God say "it's fine; be saved and come and live with me forever anyway"?

There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism

I can't see any for it - repent, receive eternal life or perish, seems pretty clear to me.

The question about God saving people who never get to hear the Gospel, or who are unable to accept it, is a different one. There ARE arguments for saying "God will save the anyway, even if they haven't heard." But that is not what I understand by universalism. Universalism says that everyone will be saved - even if they have wilfully and continually chosen to reject God's Son and gift of eternal life.

For me, it's basically relief that God is a loving God and not a monster after all.

"Not a monster, after all" suggests that you have thought/been taught that he is - maybe because someone has said that he sends people to hell to be punished. Maybe you have grown up with images of a God who tortures people for not believing in him; pushing them, happily, towards an eternal barbecue.
He doesn't.
He has sent Jesus, given us the Gospel and the choice of whether or not to receive his free gift of life. If someone, deliberately and continually says "no" to God, knowing who he is and what they are rejecting, how would it be loving to force them to spend eternity with him when they die?

 

[Andrewn]

Your not addressing the fact that the Greek word thelō was used 5 times in a context of want or desire not in the context of something that is decreed to become certain. That was the whole point of presenting Romans 7:15-21. It proves that your definition of thelō is incomplete. It is not only used meaning something that is certain to be but can also be used as something one desires or wants to be.

This is true. But when the one who wills / wants / desires is God himself, it is reasonable to conclude that He will achieve what He wants.

Another example would be when Jesus said that for the one who betrays Him it would be better for him if he had never been born. If Judas was ever destined to enter Heaven then it certainly wouldn’t be better if he had never been born.

Knowing the fate of particular persons is not our purpose or privilege. There are people who have persecuted, severely tortured, and killed Christians and others. There is no way of knowing their fate.

Then there’s Luke 12:10 he who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven but he who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. In the parallel verses in Matthew it’s written neither in this world/age or the next. In Mark 3 it’s written he never has forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal sin. Taking all of these into consideration reveals that there’s a contrast between the sins that will be forgiven and the sin that won’t be forgiven. All three of these parallel verses say the same message but in three different ways. They must be interpreted in a way that coincides with each other. I know most universalists will point to Matthew 12:32 and argue the definition of the word aiōn but you have to examine the context of all three parallel verses and even in Matthew 12:31 He specifically said it shall not be forgiven. No one can enter Heaven with unforgiven sins.

Clearly, no one who continues to blaspheme the Holy Spirit will enter Heaven. The age to come (usually called eternity) is millions and millions of years. Anything can happen.

Yes Jesus died for all men, he is the propitiation for the whole world. I absolutely agree with this but only those who abide in Him will He acknowledge before The Father and only those will be saved. He will be the one to decide who He will forgive and who He will not because He paid the price. My beliefs have nothing to do with my wants or desires they are the result of my studies on the word of God regardless of my feelings because I know that no matter what God decided I fully trust that He knows what’s best and He will always make a better decision than I ever could. I don’t question it I just believe what the scriptures tell me and in the end if I’m wrong I’ll still be content knowing that I didn’t allow my personal feelings get in the way of my beliefs or my preaching.

Amen to this.

 

[returntosender]

Christian universalism,.definition of an oxymoron.

 

[Hmm]

Christian universalism,.definition of an oxymoron.

Profound

 

[Hmm]

That's a long m, thought out reply. I'll do my best to respond to the points you raise but sorry if I overlook some.

It doesn't annoy me; it puzzles me why anyone teaches it.

People teach it because the Bible teaches that God wills and desires universal redemption for all and for all creation.

Why would Jesus have taught that if the truth was "live as you like, you'll be saved in the end"?

Christian universalism doesn't say that Jesus taught that. It's Christocentric and says that salvation will only come after you have bowed your knee and praised Him as any other tradition does.

It is.
His love is so great that he will not force anyone to believe in, and love, him

Agrees. We are made in the image of God and so we will all accept him once all our 'sin': our pride, self-centred delusions have been eradicated and we realise that our true happiness lies with Him, as the prodigal son did.

Only faith the size of a mustard seed is needed.
If someone says, "will you accept Jesus?" or if he himself were to say that; all that's needed is the word "yes". Faith and understanding don't come all at once, but once we belong to Jesus he will never let us go and no one can snatch us from his hands.
We don't need to, and can't, "do enough to appropriate the grace of God" - it is there for all; waiting for a response.

I agree with that too. I think the only difference is that you think this response has to be given in this lifetime. Universalism would see this as inventing an arbitrary cut-off point. The Harrowing of Hell for instance suggests that God doesn't simply give up on us at the moment of death.

It's not so much "why follow Jesus?" but "why would Jesus have told people to repent and have eternal life now", if it isn't necessary?

Having eternal life now - living in a good relationship with God - is obviously a good thing for universalists and non-universalists alike.

"If we don't MANAGE to receive God's grace in this life", implies, to me, that there has not been the chance to receive it - the Gospel hasn't been preached, or fully understood. God would know and understand if that had been the case and would, imo, judge accordingly.
That is not at all the same as saying, "I reject God, I'm not going to accept him or think about him now; he will save me/give me another chance after death because he is love".

Whether this is so is a decision for God surely?

Everyone will see, and recognise, Jesus; even those who rejected him in this life. That doesn't mean they will be able to repent and be saved.
Imo, that's what hell will be - knowing without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus died for your sins, but also knowing that you rejected that forgiveness when it was offered, and it is now too late. Knowing that Jesus is Lord and that all honour and glory is due to him; the one that you hated/rejected.

This again raises the fundamental question of whether or not death is the end of our relationship with God. Universalists obviously think it is not.

Except that the NT says otherwise.
In the NT, you are for Jesus, or against him; in the light or in the darkness; have eternal life, or don't. Those who reject God's amazing, free gift of eternal life, Romans 6:23, cannot live with him when they die. If people die in their sins, with unforgiven sin, how and why would a Holy God say "it's fine; be saved and come and live with me forever anyway"?

Universalism agrees, there has to be sincere repentence and a free coming to God.

I can't see any for it - repent, receive eternal life or perish, seems pretty clear to me.

What about all the verses that express God's intention of being "all in all" and saying that all will be saved?

Not a monster, after all" suggests that you have thought/been taught that he is - maybe because someone has said that he sends people to hell to be punished. Maybe you have grown up with images of a God who tortures people for not believing in him; pushing them, happily, towards an eternal barbecue.
He doesn't.

I have always rejected the idea of God as eternal tormenter. My relief was in learning that there is a Christian tradition, albeit a minority view nowadays, that goes back throughout church history that thinks the same and that a belief in ECT and God as the embodiment of live is not compatible in any way.

He has sent Jesus, given us the Gospel and the choice of whether or not to receive his free gift of life. If someone, deliberately and continually says "no" to God, knowing who he is and what they are rejecting, how would it be loving to force them to spend eternity with him when they die?

He would to force anyone because, as you say, you can't force anyone to love you. But God knows what we need to be able to see Him clearly and so love Him freely and in "hell" He would have an unlimited amount of time to do just that.

The only difference I've seen in anything you've said and in what Christian universalism says is whether death is the end of our opportunity to learn about God and thus to love Him.

I'm sure you know, but "Christian Universalism" is a clumsy phrase but perhaps it's needed to differentiate it from "Universalism". Universalism is a pluralistic viewpoint that says that all roads eventually lead to God. Christian Universalism is a traditional Christian that says that we are only saved through Christ.

That's obviously just a quick response to your post and I hope I haven't appeared to be dismissive of any of your points. In fact, I agree with everything you've said except your belief that death is the end of our relationship with God and that there are no biblical verses that support universal redemption.

 

[returntosender]

I know,

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is true. But when the one who wills / wants / desires is God himself, it is reasonable to conclude that He will achieve what He wants.

God doesn’t want anyone to sin and every single person who’s ever lived has disappointed Him, from the very first to the very last except One. God didn’t want to kill everyone in the flood but He had to in order set His plan in motion. God didn’t want the Israelites to worship the golden calf or other idols yet they did repeatedly throughout their history. If God got everything He wanted Christ wouldn’t have had to die on the cross to begin with. Christ had to die because of our constant disobedience. It’s clear from the scriptures that God doesn’t always get what He wants especially when dealing with man.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Knowing the fate of particular persons is not our purpose or privilege. There are people who have persecuted, severely tortured, and killed Christians and others. There is no way of knowing their fate.

If at any time Judas is to enter Heaven and live in paradise with The Lord for all eternity then there is no way that it would be better if he had never been born. If Judas is destined to burn for all eternity or if he is to be completely destroyed in the lake of fire then it would be better for him if he were never born. There’s no way it would be better if he were never born if he is going to live in heaven with The Lord for all eternity because no amount of temporary suffering cannot compare to eternal life in paradise with The Lord.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Clearly, no one who continues to blaspheme the Holy Spirit will not enter Heaven. The age to come (usually called eternity) is millions and millions of years. Anything can happen.

But this would contradict these verses.

““Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭12:31‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

““Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭3:28-29‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭12:10‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

What your saying is that they will be forgiven when they cease to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The scriptures say 3 times in 3 different ways that it will not be forgiven, that they never have forgiveness, that they have committed an eternal sin. In all three gospel accounts of this message the contrast is between all sins that will be forgiven as opposed to the one sin that will not be forgiven. Not to mention that this would also contradict Matthew 7:21 if all who say to Him Lord Lord will enter Heaven. You acting as if aeon can’t mean eternity or forever when it absolutely can. Unless you think that God’s kingdom, power, and glory is only for a limited time. Or that His reign is only temporary, or that those who are in Christ Jesus will only live for a limited time, or the fig tree that died and withered will only cease to produce fruit for a limited time. So it’s not as if the word aeon used in these verses cannot refer to eternity or forever, because it is used in the context of an unlimited amount of time over and over throughout the scriptures. Now I’m not saying that it always refers to an unlimited amount of time I’m just pointing out that it often does.

 

[Clare73]

I'm looking though my Bible, and I'm not seeing the Book of Clare73 anywhere

No wonder you're in so much trouble. . .you need a better Bible!

 

[Clare73]

Just as soon as you prove that I'm not rightwise king born of all England. Sorry, but "prove it isn't" whatever is always ridiculous.

Nice gloss. . .agreed.

His job is to prove another meaning for the Scriptures I've posted, which unseats the meaning I"ve presented. . .still waiting.

 

[Clare73]

Hitler's been brought up quite a lot as evidence against universalism - How can he possibly be saved alongside somebody like let's say Martin Luther King? Wouldn't that be negating the suffering of his tens of millions of victims? I don't think there are any definitive answers to questions such as these but I wonder if this makes any sense: suppose you as a parent/care giver have two children, one who's athletic, bright and sociable who you you don't feel particularly worried about and another who has serious needs such as mobility, emotional or mental health needs.

Wouldn't you as the care giver do your best to meet their individually needs? You wouldn't just give up on the more demanding child. I was wondering whether God sees us in the same kind of way and

even though we may write off Hitler types, God doesn't because we are all His children.

It's not about "Hitler types," it's about rejecting Jesus Christ and his atoning work for sin.
Nor are we all his children. . .we are all his creatures.
Only those in Christ are sons of God.

 

[Hmm]

Nor are we all his children. . .we are all his creatures.
Only those in Christ are sons of God.

What do you mean by "creatures"?

 

[Clare73]

What do you mean by "creatures"?

All life systems resulting from creation by the Creator.

 

[Hmm]

All life systems resulting from creation by the Creator.

Why do you say some people are children of God and some are mere creatures? If you are born someone's child, you are always their child, no?