Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[John Mullally]

.

 

[Hmm]

Non-Universalist is one - maybe someone has a better one.

Infernalist is used to differentiate from Annihalist - both are non-Universalist Infernalist seems to be the accepted term for a believer in an eternal hell.

I've never used the word Damnationist btw.

 

[Hmm]

If I am causing my brother to stumble by generating hatred or similar towards me by being abhorrent, then I think it's best that I discontinue posting to forums. I sincerely apologize for having offended anyone and ask for your prayers and forgiveness.

You have been unfailingly polite and patient. You have also brought a lot of learning to this discussion which has been invaluable to me and I'm sure many others, so I hope you can ignore any opinion that suggests otherwise. Christian Universalism is a very important subject which can help many struggling Christians and it needs informed and civil voices like yours to help explain it so I hope you continue. But of course, I'll fully respect your decision either way.

 

[ozso]

FWIW: I'm not upset with you or anyone else. Its a tough subject and worth considering against the Word.

I also am not upset with anyone. There are things others do that I find annoying, but far from upsetting. I love you, I love Der Alte, I love Fervent, I love 2PhiloVoid, I love Major1 and anyone else I've been at odds with. To me this subject isn't serious enough to me to arouse any actual anger or contempt etc in me. I figure there's probably more things I agree with than disagree with regarding theology and Biblical views with those I argue with on this subject.

 

[John Mullally]

Infernalist is used to differentiate from Annihalist - both are non-Universalist Infernalist seems to be the accepted term for a believer in an eternal hell.

I've never used the word Damnationist btw.

Good point - its not simply a dichotomy. Unfortunately Infernalist, Damnationist, Hell Crowd, and Annihalist have an extremely negative connotation that makes it sound like they maliciously support telling people where to go.

 

[ozso]

You have been unfailingly polite and patient. You have also brought a lot of learning to this discussion which has been invaluable to me and I'm sure many others, so I hope you can ignore any opinion that suggests otherwise. Christian Universalism is a very important subject which can help many struggling Christians and it needs informed and civil voices like yours to help explain it so I hope you continue. But of course, I'll fully respect your decision either way.

Thank you.

 

[ozso]

Good point - its not simply a dichotomy. Unfortunately Infernalist, Damnationist, and Annihalist have an extremely negative connotation that makes it sound like they maliciously support telling people where to go.

No disagreement there. It seems to a 'for lack of a better term' thing. Some or perhaps many universalists don't like being called "universalists" for that matter because of implications that can go with it.

 

[ozso]

One thing I think holds true. And that is if someone starts a thread in support of a particular view, those who support the view inevitably are in the role of being the protagonist. Whereas those against the view inevitably are in the role of the antagonist. And I think it's the antagonist who ends up setting the tone. All the protagonist is interested in initially is pitching their view. Whereas the antagonist comes in to shoot it down. How the antagonist goes about doing that tends to shape how the protagonists respond to the antagonists. I don't think that's always case, but it's probably more often than not.

 

[Hmm]

Good point - its not simply a dichotomy. Unfortunately Infernalist, Damnationist, and Annihalist have an extremely negative connotation that makes it sound like they maliciously support telling people where to go.

I agree, they do sound dismissive and new words would be better. A new word is probably needed for Universalist too because a lot of people who believe in universal restoration won't adopt it because it's usually identified with pluralistic universalism. Steve Chalke for instance. Christian Universalism is more accurate but a bit cumbersome and it makes it sound like universalism is a denomination which it is not.

I agree though that, as far as this thread goes, using the terms Universalism and non-Universalism instead of "Hell No! crowd", "URites" and "Team Hell" would help to create a more civil atmosphere so for my part I'll quit using "Team Hell".

 

[ozso]

I agree, they do sound dismissive and new words would be better. A new word is probably needed for Universalist too because a lot of people who believe in universal restoration won't adopt it because it's usually identified with pluralistic universalism. Steve Chalke for instance. Christian Universalism is more accurate but a bit cumbersome and it makes it sound like universalism is a denomination which it is not.

I agree though that, as far as this thread goes, using the terms Universalism and non-Universalism instead of "Hell No! crowd", "URites" and "Team Hell" would help to create a more civil atmosphere so for my part I'll quit using "Team Hell".

But I can still call you a heretic, right?

 

[Hmm]

One thing I think holds true. And that is if someone starts a thread in support of a particular view, those who support the view inevitably are in the role of being the protagonist. Whereas those against the view inevitably are in the role of the antagonist. And I think it's the antagonist who ends up setting the tone. All the protagonist is interested in initially is pitching their view. Whereas the antagonist comes in to shoot it down. How the antagonist goes about doing that tends to shape how the protagonists respond to it. I don't think that's always case, but it's probably more often than not.

That's true. It's a pity that Christian Universalism can only be discussed in the Controversial forum so it's inevitably going to be a debate rather than an exploration. I'm not interested in winning any arguments and I have frequently used the Ignore button in this thread to avoid repetitive argument. I've had to filter like this but I've learnt a lot from a lot of you guys so thanks!

 

[Hmm]

But I can still call you a heretic, right?

One positive about that is that it's made the universalist side, if I can call it that, look into the allegation and it's reassuring to know that, as we have seen, this turns out to be just another strawman. So calling me a heretic just tells me that I'm right!

 

[John Mullally]

I agree though that, as far as this thread goes, using the terms Universalism and non-Universalism instead of "Hell No! crowd", "URites" and "Team Hell" would help to create a more civil atmosphere so for my part I'll quit using "Team Hell".

Thank You! I find myself at odds in this loooonnnng thread with a few brothers like yourself who I respect and have collaborated with on other threads.

I commonly find others who are better at expressing the truths I agree with. I rubber stamp what Irkle stated in Posts 4496 and 4505 - just remove any inflammatory stuff.

 

[Hmm]

Thank You! I find myself at odds in this loooonnnng thread with a few brothers like yourself who I respect and have collaborated with on other threads.

I commonly find others who are better at expressing the truths I agree with. I rubber stamp what Irkle stated in Posts 4496 and 4505 - just remove any inflammatory stuff.

I think you're right to say that this is a passionate subject. There are passions on both sides. Non-Universalists believe that by rebutting universalism they are potentially helping people avoid the fate of ECT while universalists believe that they are helping people see God in a healthier way. That is something that can be discussed but only if the meaning of the term "universalism" is agreed on between the two sides which unfortunately has not been the case in this thread (I believe however that the correct meaning has been given.)

 

[ozso]

I can’t keep up with this thread – sorry – but I was so pleased with myself after my morning run in ghastly weather conditions that I decided to tackle Saint Steven’s challenge regarding 1 Corinthians 15:22. This will serve, I think, to underscore the larger points I've been making. (All Bible verses are NASB.)

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.​

Three points:

1. All of Paul’s letters are written to believers. There are few statements regarding the fate of unbelievers. 1 Corinthians is essentially nothing but instructions and advice to the believers at Corinth.
   
   
2. The above verse appears in the context of a lengthy discussion of the resurrection of believers and how it will “work.” Universalists – at least those of Saint Steven’s ilk - ignore this context and pluck the verse out of the epistle as though the Holy Spirit had suddenly inspired Paul to preach universalism.
   
   
3. For Saint Steven’s position to be correct, we would have to believe that Paul was in fact a universalist – i.e., this was his theology. Was it?
   
   Paul wrote epistles both before and after 1 Corinthians. Can they reasonably be read, as a whole, as universalist in character? To suggest this is, frankly, absurd – laughable.
   
   Let’s look at some verses from Paul’s epistles. Because Paul was writing to believers and not to unbelievers, the fate of unbelievers is typically discussed in an offhand way. In selecting these verses, I've omitted those about the predestination of the elect, about “vessels of wrath made for destruction,” and other obvious choices.
   
   Remember, all these are from the author of 1 Corinthians 15:22. If you insist your completely out-of-context interpretation of 15:22 supports universalism, you must also tap-dance your way through all of these – not to mention the huge portions of Paul’s epistles that simply can’t be read as consistent with universalism.
   
   Bear in mind as well that, for the reasons stated above, Paul’s epistles are really among the weakest NT sources for the doctrine of Hell (or at least for the reality that many people will not be saved and will experience an undesirable fate).
   
   Lastly, I will emphasize again that before I adopted a non-traditional position such as universalism, I'd give deep prayerful consideration to what the NT and Jesus specifically say about the prevalence of false doctrine in the End Times.

From 1 Corinthians itself

6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.​

11:32
But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.​

Others:

2 Thessalonians

1:9-10
These people will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified among His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—because our testimony to you was believed.​

Romans

2:5-8
But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life; but to those who are self-serving and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give wrath and indignation.​

2 Corinthians

2:15-16
For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing: to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life.​

4:3-4
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they will not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.​

Galatians

5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.​

6:8
For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.​

Ephesians

5:5-6
For this you know with certainty, that no sexually immoral or impure or greedy person, which amounts to an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.​

Philippians

3:18-19
For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even as I weep, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who have their minds on earthly things.​

When it comes to most or all of these verses, they're used far more often to disprove the doctrine of eternal security of the believer aka once saved always saved. But even a OSAS believer like John MacArthur will use them when teaching Lordship Salvation. Regarding UR, there are, and have been for a very long time, rebuttals demonstrating that those verses don't really say what you "want them to say" or are "trying to make them say". I can't think of a way right now to put that in terms that don't sound derogatory, so that's why I put them in quotes.

 

[Hmm]

All,

In the light of the above discussion on civil debate, I wonder what you guys think. This is quite a long thread which may not be helping things so would it be best to close it? I'm not sure but I believe as the OP that I can request this.

For myself, while I'd like it to continue because I think it has been very informative and educational at times, I wouldn't want it to put Christian universalism in a bad light if that is what it is doing.

So, please let me know what you think and hopefully we'll see if there's a consensus on what we'd like to do.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The entire passage begins with 10:16, but "fear not" is an inclusio as it is repeating 10:26 where the object is explicitly "them." Jesus isn't telling them to fear God in one breath and then not fear God in the next, but to fear God rather than men.

Jesus is assuring us that we are of much greater value than sparrows, and therefore not to fear God's power to destroy. Otherwise the whole sparrow allusion is redundant. Again, nowhere do we see Jesus condemning others to hell, except maybe the pharisees because that's what they're always doing to others.

The glory of the cross is not dependent upon its reception, even if only a single one were delivered by it Christ's glory would remain the same.

Who said it was? If Jesus comes to save the world, and 90%+ are doomed, then clearly his mission would be a failure. Can you at least accept that simple proposition?

And the Pharisee's were decidedly did not excel at righteous conduct, but they were whitewashed tombs making a show of "righteousness" through their religosity.

Those who ticked all the boxes, thought they were chosen people, the elect, heaven-bound and, well, just a bit better than everyone else, more intelligent, learned and wiser in their own sight than the mass of beggars doomed to hell...shall I continue?

What you are proposing renders the cross nothing more than empty brutality since apparently it was a price no one required and God just felt like doing a little pantomime where the innocent Jesus is beaten, mocked, spit on, and put naked on a cross to die the death of a criminal for no real purpose since each individual is going to be fully held accountable, or else no one is going to be held accountable. So which is it, is everyone being held accountable and the cross void or is no one being held accountable?

Who should be held accountable for the deicide? Is this a trick question? Are you suggesting that everyone is born with a divine murder conviction on their rap sheet, for which the sentence is eternal hellfire, and it's only by begging forgiveness that we can be spared, and consequently go to heaven? Talk about petty legalism.

God was victorious at the cross, by grace He gave us saving faith through His only begotten son and reconciled the world to Him. Jesus chose to lay down his life, nobody took it from him, remember?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I know many are very passionate.

Suggestion: Please find a better term for Non-Universalists than Damnationists & Infernalists.

Why not use our Lord's own nomenclature: 'Sons of hell'?

Can't put it any better than that, can we?

 

[Saint Steven]

Good point - its not simply a dichotomy. Unfortunately Infernalist, Damnationist, Hell Crowd, and Annihalist have an extremely negative connotation that makes it sound like they maliciously support telling people where to go.

That's a good point. However... It needs to be weighed against where we are coming from.

From my perspective, we are whistle-blowers. We have been lied to all our lives. The whole idea of hell is a fabrication used to control believers with fear. At one point it ramped all the way up to "heretics" being burned at the stake for having beliefs that didn't align with the church state.

And today proponents of this ancient early church belief are still being marginalized and shunned. So, please forgive us if we shine a dim light on this unfathomable evil.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

All,

In the light of the above discussion on civil debate, I wonder what you guys think. This is quite a long thread which may not be helping things so would it be best to close it? I'm not sure but I believe as the OP that I can request this.

For myself, while I'd like it to continue because I think it has been very informative and educational at times, I wouldn't want it to put Christian universalism in a bad light if that is what it is doing.

So, please let me know what you think and hopefully we'll see if there's a consensus on what we'd like to do.

This thread may be on the way to having its own zoen aionion. It's really going that extra mile and fixing on things above.

So while I freely confess my sins of zeal that sometimes lead me into 'Raca!' territory, and I'm not alone, there's been nothing I've read as yet that might warrant kolasin aionion - but then who am I to judge?

It just seems so obvious as to go without saying that the more souls Jesus saves, the better the victory. And so why not accept nothing less than absolute victory?

So press on, by all means, I'd aver.