Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

I’m not sure what you object to in the Wikipedia definition.

I don't either. Wikipedia is obviously not a professionally peer-reviewed source but it's generally a good place to start for a first introduction to a subject.

 

[Fervent]

My goal isn’t to defend universalism, but to understand the truth. I’m not pushing any one of the three main positions, though I think eternal torment is unlikely. Aside from the moral question (which is really a question of consistency with Jesus’ description of God), it rejects the vision of all being one in 1 Cor 15, and the new Jerusalem at the end of the Revelation.

While I am want to get into Revelation, 1 Cor 15 pretty clearly limits the universality to those "in Christ" rather than a more general sense.

 

[Saint Steven]

Incidentally, this is my answer to St. Steven. Perhaps we aren't given a clear answer because it isn't possible.

Thanks, but does that solve the clear contradictions?
- Hell = eternal conscious torment with no hope of escape.
- Annihilation means the "damned" will be destroyed. (incinerated)
- UR means all of creation will be restored/redeemed.

 

[Der Alte]

I’m not sure what you object to in the Wikipedia definition. Here’s one from a well known universalist site. Christian Universalism: What is it?

The overall unreliability. I will not even read Wiki. As I said a few times I have shown skeptical people how easy it is to post, change, delete anything on Wiki.

 

[hedrick]

I've heard that myself. From Jews. But apparently there's a Baptist who knows better.

According to Bernstein (Hell and its rivals), of the two major schools around Jesus’ time, Shammai thought most Jews would be punished for a maximum of a year, while Hillel thought they would be spared Gehennon completely, so only thoroughly wicked would go there. That seems to be where the year came from. It was certainly not universally agreed to. Little was.

 

[hedrick]

While I am want to get into Revelation, 1 Cor 15 pretty clearly limits the universality to those "in Christ" rather than a more general sense.

You think in the end God won’t be all in all, but some in some? Not quite the same ring.


The reason I don’t think this is clearly universalism is because he destroys all the powers opposed to God. It’s possible that some people are part of that.

 

[Servus]

I am not forwarding that as factual, simply the consequence of what you have forwarded. UR renders the cross an optional additive and nothing more. After all, if the claim on salvation does not come exclusively from submission to Christ and His cross then what universal alternative is there? Barn door is open, all comers are valid.

I wasn't talking about UR though. I was talking about our life in Christ here on this earth. Which you referred to as "wishy-washy sentimentalism". That most of any transformation that's taken place after a person is saved is through their own efforts of which the cross may have been an instrument. I supposed I should be congratulating myself a lot more instead of my sentimental attitude of owing everything to the Lord. All He did was reward me with a ticket to heaven for my good works.

 

[Fervent]

You think in the end God won’t be all in all, but some in some? Not quite the same ring.


The reason I don’t think this is clearly universalism is because he destroys all the powers opposed to God. It’s possible that some people are part of that.

God is already "all in all," in no way does His glory depend on creation.

 

[Der Alte]

* * *I supposed I should be congratulating myself a lot more instead of my sentimental attitude of owing everything to the Lord. All He did was reward me with a ticket to heaven for my good works.

And if you had gone astray what would have happened?

 

[Servus]

My goal isn’t to defend universalism, but to understand the truth. I’m not pushing any one of the three main positions, though I think eternal torment is unlikely. Aside from the moral question (which is really a question of consistency with Jesus’ description of God), it rejects the vision of all being one in 1 Cor 15, and the new Jerusalem at the end of the Revelation.

That's not how it works. It's a 'if it walks like a duck it's a duck' thing and you're guilty as charged of being a heretic and a false teacher. You also don't read the Bible etc.

 

[Servus]

I’m not sure what you object to in the Wikipedia definition. Here’s one from a well known universalist site. Christian Universalism: What is it?

Anything you submit will be met with reticule. It's all seen as rubbish no matter what the source is.

 

[Fervent]

I wasn't talking about UR though. I was talking about our life in Christ here on this earth. Which you referred to as "wishy-washy sentimentalism". That most of any transformation that's taken place after a person is saved is through their own efforts of which the cross may have been an instrument. I supposed I should be congratulating myself a lot more instead of my sentimental attitude of owing everything to the Lord. All He did was reward me with a ticket to heaven for my good works.

While I applaud your dependence on Christ in that issue, that is not what the power of the cross entails. It is not some generic empowering that enables us to conquer sin but Christ's victory over death. Plenty who do not know Christ have overcome their "misanthropy" and learned to feed and care for others, but the power of the cross is unique in that it is the power to overcome death.

 

[Servus]

I am speaking of natural consequences. Pay homage to the king as you will, but the reality is that the cross in UR is rendered moot. No need to submit to Christ, all are saved by hook or by crook.

Well if your attitude is one only submits to Christ in order to get a get out of hell card, then you're far from understanding what being a Christian means in its fullness.

 

[Fervent]

Well if your attitude is one only submits to Christ in order to get a get out of hell card, then you're far from understanding what being a Christian means in its fullness.

Ah, the strawman, where would you be without a fallacy in tow?

 

[Servus]

While I applaud your dependence on Christ in that issue, that is not what the power of the cross entails. It is not some generic empowering that enables us to conquer sin but Christ's victory over death. Plenty who do not know Christ have overcome their "misanthropy" and learned to feed and care for others, but the power of the cross is unique in that it is the power to overcome death.

So the next time I hear someone giving their testimony of how Christ transformed their life, I should say "nah, that was all you dude".

 

[Servus]

Ah, the strawman, where would you be without a fallacy in tow?

It would only be a strawman if that's not what it sounds like you've been saying.

 

[Servus]

And if you had gone astray what would have happened?

I did go astray because I took my eyes off Christ. He went after me and brought me back.

 

[Fervent]

It would only be a strawman if that's not what it sounds like you've been saying.

Only in contrast to your diminishing of the eternal life aspect of the cross. It's not that I am diminishing the effectiveness of the cross in matters of daily lives, but that aspect pales in comparison to the central tenet of the cross as the tool by which death is defeated. Whatever benefits there are on this side of the grave, they are nothing when compared to what the cross entails for those who sleep in Christ. So the strawman is pretending that I am denying the present reality, when in fact I am simply putting the emphasis where it is in both the epistles and the gospels. Christ's victory is over death, not simply to make us better people.

 

[Servus]

Only in contrast to your diminishing of the eternal life aspect of the cross. It's not that I am diminishing the effectiveness of the cross in matters of daily lives, but that aspect pales in comparison to the central tenet of the cross as the tool by which death is defeated. Whatever benefits there are on this side of the grave, they are nothing when compared to what the cross entails for those who sleep in Christ. So the strawman is pretending that I am denying the present reality, when in fact I am simply putting the emphasis where it is in both the epistles and the gospels. Christ's victory is over death, not simply to make us better people.

If you had explained that to begin with, you wouldn't have incurred my "strawmen". Perhaps you're difficult to understand and misunderstood, because you expect others to "read your mind" as they say and thus understand what you're saying as well as you do. And you don't want to have to "dumb it down" or "come down to their level" in order to be understood better.

Christ's victory over sin and death is a combination package. But putting aside the former and addressing the later, it seems your contention is that if everyone receives eternal life, that renders the Cross null and void. That the Cross only has significance if only a remnant receive eternal life. And I suppose that also entails the remnant earning eternal life in some way, to make them worthy of it?

 

[Fervent]

If you had explained that to begin with, you wouldn't have incurred my "strawmen". Perhaps you're difficult to understand and misunderstood, because you expect others to "read your mind" as they say and thus understand what you're saying as well as you do. And you don't want to have to "dumb it down" or "come down to their level" in order to be understood better.

Christ's victory over sin and death is a combination package. But putting aside the former and addressing the later, it seems your contention is that if everyone receives eternal life, that renders the Cross null and void. That the Cross only has significance if only a remnant receive eternal life. And I suppose that also entails the remnant earning eternal life in some way, to make them worthy of it?

I'm not sure why I would be difficult to understand, especially in so far as I have been stressing the power of the cross over death. No, your attempt to reformulate my argument entirely misses the point that I made in the first instance, which is that if the cross spares all from death and not simply those who join in Christ's death through baptism(as the Bible indicates) then it is rendered moot. Those who receive the gospel in this life are not spared from anything via the cross under that viewpoint, as it would indicate that they would still suffer the penalty for their sins. And if they are spared, what they are spared from is corrective punishment meaning they do not receive the perfection that such a punishment would provide. So the cross becomes either a hindrance to perfection, or an idle point accomplishing nothing for those who receive it in faith.