Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[ozso]

Sorry that I just noticed this, but you have done exactly what I chose not to do in the post to which you were responding. What I posted were two sources that simply address universalism in its historical context and a balanced manner. You have responded - which is certainly your prerogative - with the website of a professor who is one of the leading modern apologists for universalism. In a "battle of biblical scholars," his position would be a distinctly minority one.

I will add this to the mix because it is short, scholarly but readable, and does mention DeRose: Crucis - Reshaping the Gospel? The Current Rise of Ultimate Reconciliation (ac.edu.au). The author touches upon what I believe are the real roots of modern universalism. I share his view that modern universalism is a "reshaping" of the actual Gospel.

How does one account for this ‘reshaping’ of the Gospel? Part of the answer can be found in the influence of a post-modern ethos, where a multitude of views are held as being equally valid, and where there is an ethic of civility so that it is impolite to offend anyone. Added to the mix is an increasing rejection of authority and the metaphysical. The transcendence of God is being slowly reduced as sin is redefined and accountability becomes ‘unfashionable’. Along with this theological revision comes a new hermeneutic which reinterprets the Bible with the lens of UR

I noticed the author says, "If the consensus of the proponents of this claimed ‘corrective’ are right, then for the last fifteen-hundred years the Church has propagated an incomplete Gospel message". Which of course indicates that after five hundred years of the Church, something changed. But apparently the change which took place after 500 years is legit, whereas what existed before the change was bogus.

 

[Fervent]

It looked more like an accusation than an opinion to me. And I found the wording rude as in impolite and disrespectful. More specifically I don't see it as him playing nice, in accordance with a line from a movie he uses as his credo. And lest anyone accuse my of hypocrisy, I freely admit that I have been rude and impolite and disrespectful to him and others at times.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, at least as far as his statement necessarily being uncivil. It's a bit tactless but it appears more an opinion/assessment of how you were handling the Bible in a specific instance. It's borderline at worst, but I wouldn't even go that far.

 

[Fervent]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that statement. Would you care to elaborate?

The food laws weren't about health or nutrition, they were purely about obedience to God and purity. The animals that were permitted were the "pure" version of what that type of animal was supposed to be, for example there's nothing particularly unhealthy about eating camels or rabbit but both were excluded because they don't have cloven hooves. A large part of the food laws is also the animals ritual uncleanness from interacting with the dead which may lead to a health benefit, but the laws themselves are not strictly about health but were about keeping the nation holy(set apart).

 

[Fervent]

I noticed the author says, "If the consensus of the proponents of this claimed ‘corrective’ are right, then for the last fifteen-hundred years the Church has propagated an incomplete Gospel message". Which of course indicates that after five hundred years of the Church, something changed. But apparently the change which took place after 500 years is legit, whereas what existed before the change was bogus.

The statement is a conditional, not a statement of fact. It's rhetorical in that even if the proponents were correct in their assessment of the historical question(which isn't necessarily true) then what follows is that for the majority of the history of the church the gospel was entirely lost. Of course, if the claim is everyone goes to heaven this is less troubling since the gospel itself is immaterial to salvation and nothing more than an optional add-on but something tells me proponents wouldn't be quick to try that line of argumentation.

 

[Der Alte]

Many words do not always lead to truth. My father told me about the practice, so it is NOT "100s of years ago," but almost within living memory, or some may still be alive who remember:
If you had a crop of apples, potatoes, beets, whatever, to put away for the winter - but you lacked a root cellar - there was another way. First, you would dig a trench to below the local frost line. Second, line the bottom of the trench with straw. Third, layer the veggies or fruits on the straw, with more straw on top. Lastly, you would cover the whole thing with the dirt you had dug out previously. It was called "helling" the potatoes, or whatever went down there. It is probably covered in one of the "Foxfire" books.

Strange! This is not the first time I have heard a similar tale. Why I find this strange is I learned to read when FDR was president. My oldest son will be 61 next week, my youngest was 51 last week. My maternal GM was born in the 19th century and I lived with her for several years. I never heard of "helling" vegetables until I came to CF.
I just did a look up online, I tried four dictionary sites, including Merriam-Webster and Cambridge, no mention of "helling." If this was so common it should be all over the 'net. Instead, Crickets.

 

[Der Alte]

You were rude and insulting to me from the get go without provocation on my part as I showed in post #4722, not post #4723.
That's a whole lot of denial, bro.

Blatantly false accusation. I denied nothing! Here is what I said.

"I quoted ONLY 3 sources and I fully identified and linked to them.
What you decided "was likely distorted" was the Talmud fully identified in my quote. Your presumed opinion is wrong and irrelevant.
Your opinion of the 3 sources is irrelevant. They were all written/compiled by Jewish scholars.
Any references within the quotes can be fully identified in the full quotes at the provided link.
If you wish to challenge this post bring some credible scholarship to the forum your opinion is meaningless and irrelevant."​

In the post under discussion I quoted from the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1971 Encyclopedia Judaica and the pre-Christian Talmud.
Within those quotes were abbreviated references to other Jewish sources. The full ID of those abbreviations can be found in the main article . So there is absolutely no legitimate excuse for arbitrarily dismissing any of them.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

It seems to me internet discussions of controversial topics like Universalism inevitably end up in the weeds of “my verses” versus “your verses.” Such discussions never really go anywhere except deeper into the weeds.

I thus avoid the “my verses” approach. I took on 1 Corinthians 15:22 in post #4496 only because I was specifically challenged and because demolishing the Universalist interpretation was so easy it was kind of fun. As anyone can see, the Universalist who issued the challenge had no substantive response at all. The only substantive response I received was that the many other Pauline verses I cited arguably point toward Annihilationism. OK – and how does this help the Universalist? The salient point is, those verses, from the author of 15:22 himself, demolish the Universalist interpretation.

Although Universalists thank CF for allowing discussion of this topic, the fact is that it’s walled off in Controversial Christian Theology. Since the fate of the unsaved isn’t even addressed in CF’s Statement of Faith, surely this tells us something? It appears to me here, as elsewhere, that Universalism threads attract mostly (by a large majority) strong proponents. I haven’t posted under the delusion I’m likely to change any minds; I know how that goes, whether the topic is Universalism or gay marriage. I post for those, if there are any, who may be on the fence.

I'm going to say what I have to say regardless of whether it falls on deaf ears or is ignored, as I anticipate it will be because that's the game.

Emerging from the weeds to the 30,000-foot level, the broad and interrelated points I would make are:

1. Throughout the NT, and specifically from the mouth of Jesus, are dire warnings about the false teachers and false doctrines that will characterize the End Times. Every liberalization of the Gospel in recent times has been in the direction of making it weaker, more toothless and more palatable to modern sensibilities. The trend toward Universalism is squarely in this vein. If I were inclined toward Universalism, this would trouble me greatly. Does anyone seriously think Universalism is the one trend that just happens to be the exception?

2. As the scholar I quoted above suggests, the reshaping of the Gospel to mesh with modern sensibilities is part and parcel of the general trend toward postmodernism, post-postmodernism and beyond. There is no absolute truth. There is no real accountability. Morals are flexible and evolving, if objective morality exists at all. Deconstruction is the order of the day. Religious language is philosophically meaningless. Tolerance is the ultimate commandment and virtue.

At least two, and more probably three, generations below me have been indoctrinated into this mindset. If affects (infects?) every area of thought, secular and religious. Universalism is one very clear manifestation.

3. Dr. Michael S. Heiser, Dr. Michael Heiser - Biblical Scholar | Author | Semitic Languages Expert, is a world-class OT scholar and expert in the Semitic languages. His books The Unseen Realm and Supernatural, both of which I’ve read in the unabridged editions, have been groundbreaking even among those who don’t completely accept all he says. His specialty is ancient Jewish cosmology, meaning the way the ancient Jews actually viewed the heavenly and earthly realms.

Dr. Heiser is strongly opposed to Universalism. His point is that Universalists conveniently ignore the entire OT. Their God simply cannot be reconciled with the OT God. If Universalism were true, the OT would simply make no sense. No matter what spin someone may put on certain NT verses, I would think this disconnect with the OT would be extremely troubling.

4. As I showed in post #4496, the proper focus must be on the NT as a whole, not on verses such as 1 Corinthians 15:22 that are pulled out of context and made to fit a Universalist theology. By proof-texting, the Bible can made to say almost anything. The fact is, the thrust of the NT is solidly non-Universalist, which is why Universalism in all its permutations has traditionally been regarded as heretical.

Consistently, it seems to me, those who hold fringe positions allow their preferred theology to drive their interpretation of the Bible. The proper approach is for the clear thrust of the Bible to drive the theology.

5. Universalism is dangerous in two respects: (1) It may lead Christians to believe their Christian walk is irrelevant to salvation; and (2) it may lead non-Christians to believe that whether they reject the Christian message in this lifetime is irrelevant. How much more dangerous could any doctrine be?

These considerations, taken together, cause me to condemn Universalism and steer as far from it as I can. It is undeniably appealing in human terms (superficially at least), but it is not what God has communicated to mankind.

 

[John Mullally]

I'm glad that your church is not terrifying people to get a decision. And frankly, I attend a church like that. There are no UR churches. And I was like the people I worship with for most of my life. They are fine folks, as are you. (as far as I can tell)

I had an inkling that was the case from your posts long ago.

This all boils down to a rather grim conclusion. God with malice and intent did purposely devise a plan for humanity whereby the vast majority of those created in his image would be destined to eternal torture of unthinkable horror with no hope of escape. Countless billions. Many of whom never heard the gospel or had an opportunity to respond.

Is my conclusion unjustified from your perspective?

I have written several posts on CF arguing against that grim doctrine. Have a good day!

 

[Fervent]

It seems to me internet discussions of controversial topics like Universalism inevitably end up in the weeds of “my verses” versus “your verses.” Such discussions never really go anywhere except deeper into the weeds.

I thus avoid the “my verses” approach. I took on 1 Corinthians 15:22 in post #4496 only because I was specifically challenged and because demolishing the Universalist interpretation was so easy it was kind of fun. As anyone can see, the Universalist who issued the challenge had no substantive response at all. The only substantive response I received was that the many other Pauline verses I cited arguably point toward Annihilationism. OK – and how does this help the Universalist? The salient point is, those verses, from the author of 15:22 himself, demolish the Universalist interpretation.

Although Universalists thank CF for allowing discussion of this topic, the fact is that it’s walled off in Controversial Christian Theology. Since the fate of the unsaved isn’t even addressed in CF’s Statement of Faith, surely this tells us something? It appears to me here, as elsewhere, that Universalism threads attract mostly (by a large majority) strong proponents. I haven’t posted under the delusion I’m likely to change any minds; I know how that goes, whether the topic is Universalism or gay marriage. I post for those, if there are any, who may be on the fence.

I'm going to say what I have to say regardless of whether it falls on deaf ears or is ignored, as I anticipate it will be because that's the game.

Emerging from the weeds to the 30,000-foot level, the broad and interrelated points I would make are:

1. Throughout the NT, and specifically from the mouth of Jesus, are dire warnings about the false teachers and false doctrines that will characterize the End Times. Every liberalization of the Gospel in recent times has been in the direction of making it weaker, more toothless and more palatable to modern sensibilities. The trend toward Universalism is squarely in this vein. If I were inclined toward Universalism, this would trouble me greatly. Does anyone seriously think Universalism is the one trend that just happens to be the exception?

2. As the scholar I quoted above suggests, the reshaping of the Gospel to mesh with modern sensibilities is part and parcel of the general trend toward postmodernism, post-postmodernism and beyond. There is no absolute truth. There is no real accountability. Morals are flexible and evolving, if objective morality exists at all. Deconstruction is the order of the day. Religious language is philosophically meaningless. Tolerance is the ultimate commandment and virtue.

At least two, and more probably three, generations below me have been indoctrinated into this mindset. If affects (infects?) every area of thought, secular and religious. Universalism is one very clear manifestation.

3. Dr. Michael S. Heiser, Dr. Michael Heiser - Biblical Scholar | Author | Semitic Languages Expert, is a world-class OT scholar and expert in the Semitic languages. His books The Unseen Realm and Supernatural, both of which I’ve read in the unabridged editions, have been groundbreaking even among those who don’t completely accept all he says. His specialty is ancient Jewish cosmology, meaning the way the ancient Jews actually viewed the heavenly and earthly realms.

Dr. Heiser is strongly opposed to Universalism. His point is that Universalists conveniently ignore the entire OT. Their God simply cannot be reconciled with the OT God. If Universalism were true, the OT would simply make no sense. No matter what spin someone may put on certain NT verses, I would think this disconnect with the OT would be extremely troubling.

4. As I showed in post #4496, the proper focus must be on the NT as a whole, not on verses such as 1 Corinthians 15:22 that are pulled out of context and made to fit a Universalist theology. By proof-texting, the Bible can made to say almost anything. The fact is, the thrust of the NT is solidly non-Universalist, which is why Universalism is all its permutations has traditionally been regarded as heretical.

Consistently, it seems to me, those who hold fringe positions allow their preferred theology to drive their interpretation of the Bible. The proper approach is for the clear thrust of the Bible to drive the theology.

5. Universalism is dangerous in two respects: (1) It may lead Christians to believe their Christian walk is irrelevant to salvation; and (2) it may lead non-Christians to believe that whether they reject the Christian message in this lifetime is irrelevant. How much more dangerous could any doctrine be?

These considerations, taken together, cause me to condemn Universalism and steer as far from it as I can. It is undeniably appealing in human terms (superficially at least), but it is not what God has communicated to mankind.

Unfortunately, a lot of this comes as natural conclusions to theologies that have logical and systematic support but do not truly make sense of the Bible. The history of theology has been to compound error with error and now we have a predominance of philosophical theologies that either end at half measures or taken to their logical extremes require unBiblical conclusions. I have in mind primarily the Augustinian view of the fall, which leads ultimately to Calvinistic soteriology. And then the whole thing turns on the question of the atonement. Either it is limited by God, with Him consigning individuals to hell not because of their sin but simply because that's His prerogative, or it is unlimited and thus universal. Because of past theological errors we are often faced with deciding between a monstrous God and one that has no spine. Neither of which accurately captures the God of the Bible.

 

[Lazarus Short]

The food laws weren't about health or nutrition, they were purely about obedience to God and purity. The animals that were permitted were the "pure" version of what that type of animal was supposed to be, for example there's nothing particularly unhealthy about eating camels or rabbit but both were excluded because they don't have cloven hooves. A large part of the food laws is also the animals ritual uncleanness from interacting with the dead which may lead to a health benefit, but the laws themselves are not strictly about health but were about keeping the nation holy(set apart).

Well, I totally disagree, but it's too off-topic to pursue.

 

[Fervent]

Well, I totally disagree, but it's too off-topic to pursue.

If you want to discuss it via PM I'm game, or make a thread about it.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Unfortunately, a lot of this comes as natural conclusions to theologies that have logical and systematic support but do not truly make sense of the Bible. The history of theology has been to compound error with error and now we have a predominance of philosophical theologies that either end at half measures or taken to their logical extremes require unBiblical conclusions. I have in mind primarily the Augustinian view of the fall, which leads ultimately to Calvinistic soteriology. And then the whole thing turns on the question of the atonement. Either it is limited by God, with Him consigning individuals to hell not because of their sin but simply because that's His prerogative, or it is unlimited and thus universal. Because of past theological errors we are often faced with deciding between a monstrous God and one that has no spine. Neither of which accurately captures the God of the Bible.

Kind of reminds me of my first-year law school classes. Professors would use the Socratic method of leading a neophyte student through a series of questions that would end up in some absurdity. The final question would be something like "And so you agree, do you not, that everyone over 40 should be shot?" The student would've painted himself into a logical corner where the only answer that followed from his previous ones was "Well, yeah, I guess so."

I must've bought and read 40 systematic theologies hoping to construct one that would connect all the dots. It can't be done. We have to accept the mystery, that God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. What He has communicated isn't Universalism. We must trust that what He has communicated is worthy of who we believe Him to be.

 

[Der Alte]

@Fervent
Fervent Post [#4747]
Fervent Post [#4749]
Excellent summary of this topic.

 

[Fervent]

Kind of reminds me of my first-year law school classes. Professors would use the Socratic method of leading a neophyte student through a series of questions that would end of in some absurdity. The final question would be something like "And so you agree, do you not, that everyone over 40 should be shot?" The student would've painted himself into a logical corner where the only answer that followed from his previous ones was "Well, yeah, I guess so."

I must've bought and read 40 systematic theologies hoping to construct one that would connect all the dots. It can't be done. We have to accept the mystery, that God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. What He has communicated isn't Universalism. We must trust that what He has communicated is worthy of who we believe Him to be.

In discussions like this it can be a major problem, too, especially when error comes to a point where it is nigh unquestionable. For example, there's a subtle undertone in the universalist posts about the notion of merit that relies on what to me is an unBiblically extreme view of salvation by grace that excludes any condition upon which God is conferring grace. We have gone from avoiding being prideful in our selection because we did not earn salvation, to pretending that God is arbitrary in His judgments and confers salvation with no consideration of the one being saved. And this is re-inforced because of repeated quotes of verses like "filthy rags" and "none righteous."

 

[Lazarus Short]

Strange! This is not the first time I have heard a similar tale. Why I find this strange is I learned to read when FDR was president. My oldest son will be 61 next week, my youngest was 51 last week. My maternal GM was born in the 19th century and I lived with her for several years. I never heard of "helling" vegetables until I came to CF.
I just did a look up online, I tried four dictionary sites, including Merriam-Webster and Cambridge, no mention of "helling." If this was so common it should be all over the 'net. Instead, Crickets.

It harks back to a very old usage of "hell" as a verb, meaning to cover or conceal. I found it in the OED, but not easily.

 

[Lazarus Short]

If you want to discuss it via PM I'm game, or make a thread about it.

I suppose it's about time I began a thread. Thanks for the prod!

 

[Der Alte]

It harks back to a very old usage of "hell" as a verb, meaning to cover or conceal. I found it in the OED, but not easily.

One obscure, difficult to find, reference can in no way account for the widespread claim that is repeated here almost on a daily basis that "hell" means burying vegetables in the ground. Here is what I found when I googled Oxford dictionary.
"No exact match found for “helling” in English."
So I guess we can eliminate that as any kind of argument for the origin of the English word "hell."
As I said if "helling" meant burying vegetables was so well known it should be all over the 'net but we both have found that is not true

 

[Lazarus Short]

One obscure, difficult to find, reference can in no way account for the widespread claim that is repeated here almost on a daily basis that "hell" means burying vegetables in the ground. Here is what I found when I googled Oxford dictionary.
"No exact match found for “helling” in English."
So I guess we can eliminate that as any kind of argument for the origin of the English word "hell."
As I said if "helling" meant burying vegetables was so well known it should be all over the 'net but we both have found that is not true

OTOH, my father said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Your phrase "...obscure, difficult to find..." does NOT mean untrue.

 

[Der Alte]

OTOH, my father said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Your phrase "...obscure, difficult to find..." does NOT mean untrue.

Be that as it may. One personal "experience," one obscure, difficult to find reference. I couldn't find it even at Oxford, is hardly evidence that it accounts for the "hell" translation of "hades" and "Gehenna" in English language Bibles all over the world. More like a vague footnote in history.
Another UR excuse for getting "hell" out of English language Bibles is it was supposedly a Norwegian word for something or other. I typed translate and used the site that popped up. The Norwegian word for "hell" is "Helpete." That is how important "hell" was to Norwegians. Now maybe we can dispense with all those weak excuses.
As I have said a number of times even the Jews, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, have no problem equating "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom" with "hell."

 

[Saint Steven]

I have written several posts on CF arguing against that grim doctrine. Have a good day!

Fair enough.
I'm not familiar with those posts, but I promised to back off if you were uncomfortable.

If you become uncomfortable with the discussion, I will back off. No need to push it.