Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

I like how this thread has partially evolved into a discussion between supporters of UR.

That's a good observation. I notice it as well.
They are supportive of each other and rally around a cause. There is no arguing amongst them, even though they don't agree on every point. It's a beautiful thing. Not the humorless bickering and backbiting we see in other groups. What does that tell you about UR?

 

[Andrewn]

That's a good observation. I notice it as well.
They are supportive of each other and rally around a cause. There is no arguing amongst them, even though they don't agree on every point. It's a beautiful thing. Not the humorless bickering and backbiting we see in other groups. What does that tell you about UR?

Even ECT supporters would probably agree that UR advocates are nice, optimistic, and have a lofty view of God.

 

[Saint Steven]

Even ECT supporters would probably agree that UR advocates are nice, optimistic, and have a lofty view of God.

Thus shining a rather dim light on their own views and behavior. Interesting.

If I am wrong, I will need to apologize to God for having a such a high view of his character. (my "lofty" view)

 

[Saint Steven]

Even ECT supporters would probably agree that UR advocates are nice, optimistic, and have a lofty view of God.

I think UR takes the jagged edge off of God's justice. It sees it as a surgeon's knife rather than a tyrant's sword. Loving mercy, rather than angry revenge.

There is an emotional freedom that comes from releasing God from such a dim view. Oceans of mercy replace an annoying "water torture" drip.

 

[Hmm]

I think UR takes the jagged edge off of God's justice. It sees it as a surgeon's knife rather than a tyrant's sword. Loving mercy, rather than angry revenge.

There is an emotional freedom that comes from releasing God from such a dim view. Oceans of mercy replace an annoying "water torture" drip.

Yes, someone only embraces universalism after learning about it and making a rational decision to, because hardly anyone is brought up in it there being no universalist churches AFAIK. It's nice when you discover that there is such a large number of scholars, theologians, writers and laypeople out there who share your belief in a God who doesn't torment or torture His children.

 

[Major1]

The expression translated "eternal life" is "ζωὴν αἰώνιον" and this is pronounced "zoeen eonian" i.e. eonian life!!! In other words, eternal life is eonian life. You cannot have one without the other.

"Eternal" = Forever and ever and ever and ever and ever..........

 

[Andrewn]

Yes, someone only embraces universalism after learning about it and making a rational decision to,

This was not my experience. Very early on, I suspected that something was wrong with ECT when I read:

1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Major1]

Because the wisest man who ever lived said:

Mar 2:21 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise the patch pulls away from the old, and a worse tear happens. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins; and the wine is lost, also the skins. But one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.”


Right, and the Apostles said:

1Co 15:25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Rev 21:4 ‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’ and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.”


Just for your information, the EO Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 renounced Calvin by name and pronounced an anathema upon anyone teaching that God predestined anyone to evil or Hell.

Plucking the TULIP (1) – An Orthodox Critique of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

I really have no concern what soever with what the Synod of Jerusalem said.

God said in Romans 8:29-30......
“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”

Eph. 1:5 & 11 declare, ....
“He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.”

Now because some do not grasp this doctine does not mean it does not exist.

 

[Hmm]

This was not my experience. Very early on, I suspected that something was wrong with ECT when I read:

1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I never took ECT seriously as a concept but it was only once I learnt that Christian Universalism is supported by so many watertight arguments and Infernalism has no arguments at except incoherent nonsense that I made the very easy decision to accept it.

 

[Lazarus Short]

...there being no universalist churches AFAIK.

Well, there is the Unitarian Universalist Church, but I don't recommend it. I doubt it can be classified as Christian.

 

[Major1]

I never took ECT seriously as a concept but it was only once I learnt that Christian Universalism is supported by so many watertight arguments and Infernalism has no arguments at except incoherent nonsense that I made the very easy decision to accept it.

This is somewhat disturbing, because Universalism is not taught anywhere in the Bible! It may be what you want to believe but it is not found in the Scriptures.

You as a Universalist are saying that "all human beings will eventually be saved after death".

Thus, even someone who died as an atheist, would eventually accept Jesus in the afterlife and become a Christian, and be allowed into heaven.

On the surface it doesn't really seem like a bad teaching - it's tolerant, accepting, hopeful. If God really was "good", then of course He would let everyone into heaven, right? How could a "loving" God send anyone - even Hitler - to hell for eternity?

Unfortunately, Universalism - is a completely non-Biblical concept. Christians may be attracted to the idea and to want to justify it because they cannot see how God could send nice people to hell just for not believing in Him. They may want to believe that eventually their Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist friends or family may end up in Heaven. But the Bible teaches clearly the opposite - that hell is eternal, and all people who do not believe in Jesus will be sent there.

Now that is what the Bible says whether YOU like it or not.

 

[Lazarus Short]

This is somewhat disturbing, because Universalism is not taught anywhere in the Bible! It may be what you want to believe but it is not found in the Scriptures.

You as a Universalist are saying that "all human beings will eventually be saved after death".

Thus, even someone who died as an atheist, would eventually accept Jesus in the afterlife and become a Christian, and be allowed into heaven.

On the surface it doesn't really seem like a bad teaching - it's tolerant, accepting, hopeful. If God really was "good", then of course He would let everyone into heaven, right? How could a "loving" God send anyone - even Hitler - to hell for eternity?

Unfortunately, Universalism - is a completely non-Biblical concept. Christians may be attracted to the idea and to want to justify it because they cannot see how God could send nice people to hell just for not believing in Him. They may want to believe that eventually their Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist friends or family may end up in Heaven. But the Bible teaches clearly the opposite - that hell is eternal, and all people who do not believe in Jesus will be sent there.

Now that is what the Bible says whether YOU like it or not.

Here we go again - pardon me, but which Bible? Don't you really mean to say, "the translation that I read and believe in"? You should realize that not all Bibles support "hell" or ECT. I have in my own library at least three Bible versions which do not mention "hell" or ECT, and I have a list of several more. "The Bible" is not as monolithic as many think, and that is why a Bible quote should be followed by the version it came from.

In my own case, in 2014 I decided to decide which was correct - ECT, annihilation or UR. To decide, I examined an ordinary KJV from Genesis to the Revelation. I found little evidence of annihilation, I saw, once I looked at the Hebrew and Greek, that the verses supporting "hell" and ECT were badly translated...even doctored. I discovered, to my delight, that UR could be found and defended even in the KJV, and long before the Revelation, I had decided. The big stumbling block is getting over the fear of "hell," but if you trace that concept to its origins, that fear goes "poof." After that, I have read versions that do not support "hell" or ECT, though I still often quote from the KJV. Go figure. Currently, I am reading "The Scriptures."

 

[Major1]

Here we go again - pardon me, but which Bible? Don't you really mean to say, "the translation that I read and believe in"? You should realize that not all Bibles support "hell" or ECT. I have in my own library at least three Bible versions which do not mention "hell" or ECT, and I have a list of several more. "The Bible" is not as monolithic as many think, and that is why a Bible quote should be followed by the version it came from.

In my own case, in 2014 I decided to decide which was correct - ECT, annihilation or UR. To decide, I examined an ordinary KJV from Genesis to the Revelation. I found little evidence of annihilation, I saw, once I looked at the Hebrew and Greek, that the verses supporting "hell" and ECT were badly translated...even doctored. I discovered, to my delight, that UR could be found and defended even in the KJV, and long before the Revelation, I had decided. The big stumbling block is getting over the fear of "hell," but if you trace that concept to its origins, that fear goes "poof." After that, I have read versions that do not support "hell" or ECT, though I still often quote from the KJV. Go figure. Currently, I am reading "The Scriptures."

The old stand by.......When someone refute an idea it is always,........"You have the wrong translation"!

"The real issue between Dualists and Annihilationists is nothing other than this: Does Scripture teach that the wicked will be made immortal for the purpose of suffering endless pain; or does it teach that the wicked following whatever degree and duration of pain God may justly inflict, will finally and truly die, perish and become extinct forever and ever?" (The Fire That Consumes, Edward W. Fudge, Annihilationist, p. 425)

If ALL MEN both good and WICKED put on immortality at the resurrection, whether the 1st or 2nd, then how do they then cease to exist? What kind of immortality is that? Hence eternal torment! Never to die again! Man's body is not immortal now, but will be made so. All men, whether good or wicked! Man survives death consciously, then at resurrection is made immortal!

 

[Der Alte]

Here we go again - pardon me, but which Bible? Don't you really mean to say, "the translation that I read and believe in"? You should realize that not all Bibles support "hell" or ECT. I have in my own library at least three Bible versions which do not mention "hell" or ECT, and I have a list of several more. "The Bible" is not as monolithic as many think, and that is why a Bible quote should be followed by the version it came from.
In my own case, in 2014 I decided to decide which was correct - ECT, annihilation or UR. To decide, I examined an ordinary KJV from Genesis to the Revelation. I found little evidence of annihilation, I saw, once I looked at the Hebrew and Greek, that the verses supporting "hell" and ECT were badly translated...even doctored. I discovered, to my delight, that UR could be found and defended even in the KJV, and long before the Revelation, I had decided. The big stumbling block is getting over the fear of "hell," but if you trace that concept to its origins, that fear goes "poof." After that, I have read versions that do not support "hell" or ECT, though I still often quote from the KJV. Go figure. Currently, I am reading "The Scriptures."

I have been active at this forum since late '89, early '90. I realized early on that the same arguments and out-of-context "proof texts" are repeated over and over ad infinitum so I began saving my responses so I don't have to reinvent the wheel every times I see a repetitive answer.
The specious argument "the Bible is mistranslated/corrupted etc.
The usual response for the person who makes that kind of argument is to find a version which seems to support their assumptions/presuppositions and declare it the "only" correct translation..
.....Hebrew has been the language of Jews since before Moses. Who better than the native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars who translated the 1917 JPS translation of the T'anakh[OT] know the correct meaning of Hebrew words?
.....Greek has been the language of Eastern Orthodox church for at least 2000+ years. Who better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the Eastern Orthodox Bible[EOB] know the correct meaning of Greek words?
Both translations are available free online.

Breslov References & Citations - Genesis 1:1-31

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/original/18204/Eastern_Orthodox_Bible-New_Testament.pdf

 

[Der Alte]

This was not my experience. Very early on, I suspected that something was wrong with ECT when I read:
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Anyone can make the Bible say almost anything they want it to by quoting selective verses out-of-context as in this post.
Does everything that God desires come to pass without exception?
Many years ago when I first heard the proof text about a leopard not being able to change his spots, nor the Ethiopian his skin, I needed to see the context. I found that God was speaking to the king and queen of Israel not, necessarily all of mankind, Jer 13:18. And as I read further in this chapter I found another passage, which refutes several tenets.
.....Note this passage from Jeremiah. God said “I have caused to cleave” That word is הדבקתי/ha’dabaq’thi. It is in the perfect or completed sense. God’s express will, clearly stated, for the whole house of Israel and Judah, to cling to God as a belt clings to a man’s waist.
It was done, finished, completed, in God’s sight, and, according to some arguments, nothing man can do will cause God’s will to not be done. But they, Israel and Judah, would not hear and obey, their will, vs. God’s will, So God destroyed them, vs. 14.
…..This passage very much speaks to God’s sovereign will, and man’s free will and agency. God stated very clearly what His will was, in terms that cannot be misunderstood. But, because the Israelites and Judeans would not hear, and obey, God destroyed them, instead of them being unto God, “for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory, vs. 10.”

Jer 13:1 Thus saith the LORD unto me, Go and get thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, and put it not in water.
2 So I got a girdle according to the word of the LORD, and put it on my loins.
3 And the word of the LORD came unto me the second time, saying,
4 Take the girdle that thou hast got, which is upon thy loins, and arise, go to Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole of the rock.
5 So I went, and hid it by Euphrates, as the LORD commanded me.
6 And it came to pass after many days, that the LORD said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take the girdle from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there.
7 Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it: and, behold, the girdle was marred, it was profitable for nothing.
8 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
9 Thus saith the LORD, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem.
10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave [הדבקתי/ha’dabaq’thi] unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
· · ·
14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

Note, verse 14, God said “I will NOT have pity, will NOT spare, and will NOT have mercy but destroy them.”

 

[Hmm]

I realized early on that the same arguments and out-of-context "proof texts" are repeated over and over ad infinitum so I began saving my responses so I don't have to reinvent the wheel every times I see a repetitive answer.

So you have your own list of out of context proof texts preprepared to fire off to.counter someone else's list. Makes sense.

The specious argument "the Bible is mistranslated/corrupted etc.
The usual response for the person who makes that kind of argument is to find a version which seems to support their assumptions/presuppositions and declare it the "only" correct translation..

Do you chose a Bible version that runs counter to your views then? Do you think your favoured version is correct?

Greek has been the language of Eastern Orthodox church for at least 2000+ years. Who better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the Eastern Orthodox Bible[EOB] know the correct meaning of Greek words?
Both translations are available free online.

Why does the Eastern Orthodox church have no official position on universal reconciliation and leave it as a matter of conscience for it's members? Surely it wouldn't allow this if it believed that scripture taught ECT as definitively as you do. And many Early Church Fathers were native Greek speakers and were universalists so your argument in that point. is a weak one.

 

[Der Alte]

So you have your own list of out of context proof texts preprepared to fire off to.counter someone else's list. Makes sense.

Unlike you and other UR-ites, I don't just quote a passage I usually include some context and am prepared to give an in-depth discussion why what I quote is NOT out-of-context. Here is a favorite UR proof text.

1 Corinthians 3:14-15
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.​

UR-ites would have us believe that vs. 15 means that all of sinful mankind's ordinary, mundane works will be burned but all mankind will be saved by fire. First, nowhere is it written that anyone will be saved by fire and/or having their ordinary mundane works burned.
The passage 1 Cor 3:8-17 is addressed only to laborers together with God, God's husbandry, God's building who build on the foundation of Christ not all mankind.
My complete discussion was posted a day or 2 ago in another thread this forum.
[Post #781]

Do you chose a Bible version that runs counter to your views then? Do you think your favoured version is correct?

I more or less grew up with King Jimmy from the early '40s but because I have served in Korean churches since the mid '70s I learned that the KJV is almost unintelligible to anyone whose native language is not English.
My first Greek prof was on the initial NIV committee so I lean toward it mostly. But I also refer often to the original languages. I started learning to speak Greek in the late '50s, in Germany.

Why does the Eastern Orthodox church have no official position on universal reconciliation and leave it as a matter of conscience for it's members? Surely it wouldn't allow this if it believed that scripture taught ECT as definitively as you do. And many Early Church Fathers were native Greek speakers and were universalists so your argument in that point. is a weak one.

I say this about that.

EOB Matt 25:45 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 25:45–46). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.
EOB 3:15 so that everyone believing in him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 Indeed, God so loved the world that he gave his uniquely-begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Jn 3:15–17). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

You are posting the usual rubbish about "...many Early Church Fathers were native Greek speakers and were universalists..." My own personal research they were not. That derives from a single paragraph quote from the 19th century Schaff, Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious History which provides no historical evidence for the claim.

 

[Hmm]

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.UR-ites would have us believe that vs. 15 means that all of sinful mankind's ordinary, mundane works will be burned but all mankind will be saved by fire. First, nowhere is it written that anyone will be saved by fire and/or having their ordinary mundane works burned.

But that's exactly what the verse says or else what does "but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." mean?

I started learning to speak Greek in the late '50s, in Germany.

Are you sure you weren't unwittingly learning German instead?

You are posting the usual rubbish about "...many Early Church Fathers were native Greek speakers and were universalists..." My own personal research they were not. That derives from a single paragraph quote from the 19th century Schaff, Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious History which provides no historical evidence for the claim.

Even Augustine, a clear non-universalist, said that universalism was a rather popular doctrine in the early church. He wrote this in the fifth century:

"It is quite in vain, then, that some–indeed very many–yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture—but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express literal truth."
— Augustine, Enchiridion, sec. 112.

So he not only says that there were "indeed very many" universalists but also that the universalist belief does not go "counter to divine Scripture". Augustine is the main guy who introduced ECT to the world, especially in the west (as you know, he notoriously didn't speak Greek and admitted that he hated the language. He worked off poor quality Latin translations and developed the idea of ECT from those) so are you going to disagree with him as well?

 

[Der Alte]

But that's exactly what the verse says or else what does "but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." mean?

Read the entire passage, 1 Cor 3:8-17 in context, NOT just one verse and try to make it say what you want it to.
[post #781]
"yet so as by fire" does NOT mean "saved by fire" Think "as if by fire."

EOB1 Cor 3:14
14 If what someone has built on the foundation remains, then a reward shall be received. 15 [On the other hand], if someone’s work is burned, it will be lost, but that person shall be saved, as through fire.
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (1 Co 3:14–15). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

Are you sure you weren't unwittingly learning German instead?

I already knew German. I learned it when I was 12 with some assistance from a teacher. I had to oversee civilian workers. I thought they were German so I spoke German to them. One told me "You speak good German. We not German we Greek." The first word I learned was "trapezi" pr. "trahpayzee." "table."

Even Augustine, a clear non-universalist, said that universalism was a rather popular doctrine in the early church. He wrote this in the fifth century:
"It is quite in vain, then, that some–indeed very many–yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture—but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express literal truth."
— Augustine, Enchiridion, sec. 112.

"Very many" does not mean "most." Guess you missed this. "Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture—but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express literal truth."

So he not only says that there were "indeed very many" universalists but also that the universalist belief does not go "counter to divine Scripture". Augustine is the main guy who introduced ECT to the world, especially in the west (as you know, he notoriously didn't speak Greek and admitted that he hated the language. He worked off poor quality Latin translations and developed the idea of ECT from those) so are you going to disagree with him as well?

One ancient scholar who provides no historical evidence for his opinions. You misquote Augustine he did not say "the universalist belief does not go 'counter to divine Scripture'" He said "Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture—but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify."
IOW according to Augustine those contemporaries of himself twisted, misquoted etc. scripture to make it say what they waned it to.
I want to see sources by name and date NOT the opinions of someone else.

 

[Saint Steven]

This is somewhat disturbing, because Universalism is not taught anywhere in the Bible! It may be what you want to believe but it is not found in the Scriptures.

This is the sort of ignorance we are hoping to dispel.

Universalism was alive and well in the early church. See quote below.
The belief was dominant in the Eastern/Greek church. (4 of 6 early Church theological schools were Universalist) When the Western/ Latin Church became dominant, UR was pushed out. We are currently witnessing a revival of an early church belief.

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor:

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."