Is Universal Salvation In Conflict With The Nicene Creed?

[P1LGR1M]

Seeing that this issue takes up quite a bit of time on this forum, and is of great interest to people (as evidenced by the views these threads receive), I would ask the question of the OP, is Universal Salvation in conflict with the Nicene Creed?

I would also like to say that this thread is not meant to offend those who embrace Universal Salvation but to bring something to the Table that may not have been considered before. It is an attempt at genuine discussion that has the best interests of all sides at heart. So just give it a chance.

Here is the aspect of the Creed I would suggest Universal Salvation comes into conflict with:

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

We believe there is One Baptism, right?


Ephesians 4:4-6
King James Version

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


The first thing we would need to do in this discussion is determine what baptism Paul is speaking about here.

I will say that I view it to be referring to the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and defined as such by " One God and Father of all...Who is in you all."

It is a reference to the Eternal Indwelling of God.

We, the One Body, have the One Spirit, and He is in all of us.

Or we are not part of that One Body, right? (Romans 8:9)

So that would be the first aspect of the discussion.

Secondly, we consider the remission of sins as found in the Creed:

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

Many of our brethren have taken the view that Peter is preaching water baptism "for the remission of sins based on the following:


Acts 2:38
King James Version

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


At first glance that sounds reasonable. However, when we look at all relevant passages concerning baptism, one thing that most of us conclude is that water baptism does not save, and it is not the means of receiving the Holy Ghost.

What is the Baptism through which we receive the Holy Ghost?


Acts 1:4-5
King James Version

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


The Baptism with the Holy Ghost, of course. And it is contrasted with water baptism here.

(See also Acts 11:13-15)

Christ is the Baptizer, not men, thus we would not exclude this Baptism from the foundational beliefs we hold as the One Body.


Acts 2:38
King James Version

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Which of the disciples were water baptized on the Day of Pentecost when they were Baptized with the Holy Ghost?

While we do see water baptism associated with some of the occasions men received the Holy Ghost, we also see water baptism is specifically contrasted with this Baptism. Secondly, we know that water baptism as a means of identification is itself not the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

Again, this is one point that I think would need to be resolved in this discussion.

So back to the Creed:

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

"Baptism for the remission of sins."

What does that mean?

And when does it take place?

I think most would agree that we receive remission of sins through belief in Christ so how is it that there is dispute concerrning how we are forgiven? Remission of sins is through the Work of Christ and believers have been made complete in regards to remission of sins forever (Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:14).

So, in an effort to make this as short as possible, let me get to the challenge: If the One Body believes there is One Baptism for the remission of sins, is that baptism the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and if so—when does that baptism take place?

For the Universal Salvationist, is it possible for those who reject Christ and the One Baptism to be brought into the One Body by receiving the One Baptism for the remission of sins?

Is it the "baptism with fire" spoken of here...


Matthew 3:11-12
King James Version

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


I would suggest it couldn't possibly be.

Why?

Because we believe in One Baptism for the remission of sins, not two.

So I open this up for discussion and ask that we forego emotion, bias, and the general irritation we have for those who believe differently than we do. This is not a discussion that challenges the sincerity of anyone's faith, nor is it meant to call into question the reality of any member's salvation. We aren't saved by knowledge, but by the Blood of Christ and His redemptive work for us. He saves us despite what knowledge we have gained in our walk with Him, or the lack thereof when we were all saved.


God bless.

 

[Brother-Mike]

From the Creed (my emphasis in red): "...and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

I'm not really familiar with a Universalist approach to interpretation here, so am happy to be enlightened To me this aligns with Revelation:

And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15 ESV.)

and shortly after:

But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life. (Revelation 21:27 ESV).

So what would be the Universalist understanding here? That the judgement and casting into the lake of fire was just temporary, and from there those not in the Book of Life have some redemptive path out? Supporting verses or exegesis?

My vote is that the Nicene Creed supports Revelation's description of Judgement, which is not Universalist.

 

[Hmm]

Here's the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Its only reference to the life to come is the sentence I've highlighted near the end. There's no reference to eternal torment or annihilation anywhere so there's therefore no contradiction with universalism. Most universalists believe in punishment after death, it's just that they believe this punishment is corrective in nature and will not last forever.

That answers your question I think.

 

[Der Alte]

***Most universalists believe in punishment after death, it's just that they believe this punishment is corrective in nature and will not last forever....

Unfortunately they cannot support this with any direct scripture. They have to cobble together unrelated scripture. And don't even think about referring to "Kolasis." The sources the scholars consulted to determine the correct definition highlighted in blue.

κόλασις, εως, ἡ (s. prec. three entries; ‘punishment, chastisement’ so Hippocr.+; Diod S 1, 77, 9; 4, 44, 3; Aelian, VH 7, 15; SIG2 680, 13; LXX; TestAbr, Test12Patr, ApcEsdr, ApcSed; AscIs 3:13; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 7, Mos. 1, 96; Jos., Ant. 17, 164; SibOr 5, 388; Ar. [Milne 76, 43]; Just.)
① infliction of suffering or pain in chastisement, punishment so lit. κ. ὑπομένειν undergo punishment Ox 840, 6; δειναὶ κ. (4 Macc 8:9) MPol 2:4; ἡ ἐπίμονος κ. long-continued torture ibid. Of the martyrdom of Jesus (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 48, 95; 8, 43, 12) PtK 4 p. 15, 34. The smelling of the odor arising fr. sacrifices by polytheists ironically described as punishment, injury (s. κολάζω) Dg 2:9.
② transcendent retribution, punishment (ApcSed 4:1 κόλασις καὶ πῦρ ἐστιν ἡ παίδευσίς σου.— Diod S 3, 61, 5; 16, 61, 1; Epict. 3, 11, 1; Dio Chrys. 80 [30], 12; 2 Macc 4:38 al. in LXX; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1, 55; 2, 196; Jos., Ant. 1, 60 al.; Just.; Did., Gen., 115, 28; 158, 10) ApcPt 17:32; w. αἰκισμός 1 Cl 11:1. Of eternal punishment (w. θάνατος) Dg 9:2 (Diod S 8, 15, 1 κ. ἀθάνατος). Of hell: τόπος κολάσεως ApcPt 6:21 (Simplicius in Epict. p. 13, 1 εἰς ἐκεῖνον τὸν τόπον αἱ κολάσεως δεόμεναι ψυχαὶ καταπέμπονται); ἐν τῇ κ. ἐκείνῃ 10:25; ibid. ἐφορῶσαι τὴν κ. ἐκείνων (cp. ApcEsdr 5:10 p. 30, 2 Tdf. ἐν τῇ κ.). ἐκ τῆς κ. ApcPt Rainer (cp. ἐκ τὴν κ. ApcSed 8:12a; εἰς τὴν κ. 12b and TestAbr B 11 p. 116, 10 [Stone p. 80]). ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς κ. αἰώνιον go away into eternal punishment Mt 25:46 (οἱ τῆς κ. ἄξιοι ἀπελεύσονται εἰς αὐτήν Iren. 2, 33, 5 [Harv. I 380, 8]; κ. αἰώνιον as TestAbr A 11 p. 90, 7f [Stone p. 28]; TestReub 5:5; TestGad 7:5; Just., A I, 8, 4; D. 117, 3; Celsus 8, 48; pl. Theoph. Ant. 1, 14 [p. 90, 13]). ῥύεσθαι ἐκ τῆς αἰωνίου κ. rescue fr. eternal punishment 2 Cl 6:7. τὴν αἰώνιον κ. ἐξαγοράζεσθαι buy one’s freedom fr. eternal pun. MPol 2:3 v.l. κακαὶ κ. τοῦ διαβόλου IRo 5:3. κ. τινος punishment for someth. (Ezk 14:3, 7; 18:30; Philo, Fuga 65 ἁμαρτημάτων κ.) ἔχειν κόλασίν τινα τῆς πονηρίας αὐτοῦ Hs 9, 18, 1. ἀναπαύστως ἕξουσιν τὴν κ. they will suffer unending punishment ApcPt Bodl. 9–12. ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει fear has to do with punishment 1J 4:18 (cp. Philo, In Flacc. 96 φόβος κολάσεως).—M-M. TW.[1]

[1] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 555.

16000909


​

 

[David's Harp]

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Its only reference to the life to come is the sentence I've highlighted near the end. There's no reference to eternal torment or annihilation anywhere so there's therefore no contradiction with universalism. Most universalists believe in punishment after death, it's just that they believe this punishment is corrective in nature and will not last forever.

That answers your question I think.

Hmm, I'm not sure it does answer the question which asks if Universalism disagrees with the Nicene Creed.
You seem to have omitted the crucial piece of the creed which states: We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
If there is only one baptism for forgiveness of sins, then when does this take place for non-believers who have not been baptised in this life?

 

[Hmm]

Hmm, I'm not sure it does answer the question which asks if Universalism disagrees with the Nicene Creed.
You seem to have omitted the crucial piece of the creed which states: We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
If there is only one baptism for forgiveness of sins, then when does this take place for non-believers who have not been baptised in this life?

Universalism upholds the Nicene Creed, plain and simple. The words "in this life" are yours, not the Creed's. There is really nothing to debate here.

 

[David's Harp]

Universalism upholds the Nicene Creed, plain and simple. The words "in this life" are yours, not the Creed's. There is really nothing to debate here.

We'll take away the words "in this life". When do non-believers become baptised?

 

[Hmm]

We'll take away the words "in this life". When do non-believers become baptised?

In the next age.

 

[hedrick]

Hmm, I'm not sure it does answer the question which asks if Universalism disagrees with the Nicene Creed.
You seem to have omitted the crucial piece of the creed which states: We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
If there is only one baptism for forgiveness of sins, then when does this take place for non-believers who have not been baptised in this life?

Historically that was probably a reference to baptismal regeneration. I think many of our readers would not consider that essential.

Judging the quick and the dead seems to be no issue. I think even universalists expect judgement.

 

[David's Harp]

In the next age.

Would that be the baptism of fire as referenced in Matthew 3:11-12 and as the OP suggests above?

 

[David's Harp]

Historically that was probably a reference to baptismal regeneration. I think many of our readers would not consider that essential.

Judging the quick and the dead seems to be no issue. I think even universalists expect judgement.

Yeah, I suppose it depends on how important you see the Nicene Creed as being.

 

[Hmm]

Would that be the baptism of fire as referenced in Matthew 3:11-12 and as the OP suggests above?

These questions have been discussed ad nauseum in the hundreds of universalist threads here and I'm not going to rehash the arguments in this one.

This thread asks specifically about universalism and the Nicene Creed. If you feel that universalism contradicts any part of the Creed, please say what it is and I'll try to respond.

It's worth noting that Gregory of Nyssa, the "father of fathers" to the Orthodox church, played a major role in drawing up the Nicene Creed and he was a universalist.

 

[David's Harp]

These questions have been discussed ad nauseum in the hundreds of universalist threads here and I'm not going to rehash the arguments in this one.

This thread asks specifically about universalism and the Nicene Creed. If you feel that universalism contradicts any part of the Creed, please say what it is and I'll try to respond.

It's worth noting that Gregory of Nyssa, the "father of fathers" to the Orthodox church, played a major role in drawing up the Nicene Creed and he was a universalist.

Well I think that was the sticking point with regards the OP: the section on baptism.

 

[Hmm]

Well I think that was the sticking point with regards the OP: the section on baptism.

Okay, but I've answered that. Universalism believes in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. It affirms the Nicene Creed. Nothing to see here.

 

[PloverWing]

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

The sacraments are an important means of grace for us, but God is free to act graciously towards us even in the absence of the sacraments.

In this particular case, while we are given baptism as a sacrament through which sins are forgiven, God is free to forgive sins even in the absence of baptism. We see Jesus forgiving the sins of unbaptized people in several places in the gospels, for example.

Thus, I do not believe this statement in the creed excludes the hope of universal reconciliation.

 

[P1LGR1M]

From the Creed (my emphasis in red): "...and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

I'm not really familiar with a Universalist approach to interpretation here, so am happy to be enlightened To me this aligns with Revelation:

And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15 ESV.)

Agreed.

I can say that one person believes God is the Lake of Fire.

But I hope to keep this centered on the topic of the OP, rather than general beliefs between opposing views. If you can't find a thread discussing it—just wait five minutes. lol

and shortly after:

But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life. (Revelation 21:27 ESV).

So what would be the Universalist understanding here? That the judgement and casting into the lake of fire was just temporary, and from there those not in the Book of Life have some redemptive path out?

It's interesting to note that so far I have yet to see universalists discuss the Book of Life.

Supporting verses or exegesis?

They have many verses they feel support their view. In the thread, "Rethinking Hell," the views are given as well as the verses and passages used to support Universal Salvation.

My vote is that the Nicene Creed supports Revelation's description of Judgement, which is not Universalist.

And that is the question—does it?

We agree that Revelation supports Everlasting Separation, Torment, and Punishment, but the question would be—can we impose One Baptism into Universal Salvation?

Thanks for joining the conversation, Brother Mike. This is how we, as a body, come to conclusions. By discussion of God's Word.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

The sacraments are an important means of grace for us, but God is free to act graciously towards us even in the absence of the sacraments.

As mentioned in the OP, I do not embrace the notion that men can receive remission of sins through Baptism.

Christian Baptism, or, water baptism is symbolic, representative of a spiritual truth that has taken place in the life of the one being baptized.

When John the Baptist "baptized unto repentance" he was not granting or bestowing repentance to those who were baptized, it was a public ceremony, and had as a focus the profession of the one being baptized confessing that they had done that which their baptism identified them with.

In john's baptism unto repentance, they declared that they had repented.

John rejected those that he identified as being insincere in repentance, thus he did not baptize them:


Matthew 3:7-8
King James Version

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:


In other words, John was saying—"Prove it!"

Their fruit disqualified them for the baptism because they had not repented. Thus he refused to baptize them.

Similarly, we would not baptize someone we knew had not believed in Jesus Christ in Christian Baptism. A professing atheist, for example, would not be baptized in identification with Jesus.

Which is the second characteristic of water baptism: it is an identification with someone or something. Israel was "baptized into Moses," thus identified with Moses (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). John's disciples were identified with him (Acts 19:2-3).

When men and women are identified with Christ it is expected that they—are believers in Jesus Christ.

In other words, just as repentance needed to have taken place in order to be "baptized unto repentance" by John, even so salvation must have taken place in order to be "Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ," or, "in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

Water Baptism is not the One Baptism of the One Body of Christ.

As I said in the OP...

Ephesians 4:4-6
King James Version

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


The first thing we would need to do in this discussion is determine what baptism Paul is speaking about here.

I will say that I view it to be referring to the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and defined as such by " One God and Father of all...Who is in you all."

It is a reference to the Eternal Indwelling of God.

We, the One Body, have the One Spirit, and He is in all of us.

Or we are not part of that One Body, right? (Romans 8:9)


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

In this particular case, while we are given baptism as a sacrament through which sins are forgiven,

Water Baptism does not forgive sins.

It is not an equivalent to the remission of sins received by men and women in all Old Testament Eras.

It is an identification with Christ, and that it is public had great significance in a culture where identifying with Christ could mean being ostracized, excommunicated, and even killed.

We see that importance today in cultures that still kill men and women for believing in Jesus Christ.

Here is the bottom line as to how we are forgiven in an eternal context:


Colossians 1:12-14
King James Version

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


Creating a doctrine of either Baptismal Regeneration or Baptismal Remission from Acts 2:38 and ignoring the rest of Scripture is a poor way to establish Bible Doctrine, or Christian Doctrine.

And this is one of the key elements in determining whether Universal Salvation is in conflict with the Nicene Creed: where does Scripture say there is the One Baptism for the Lost?

We can immediately take water Baptism off the Table because 1), when the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is discussed it is stated clearly that it is not water baptism (Matthew 3:11-12; Acts 1:5-4; Acts 11:15-16; implied in Acts 19:3-4), and 2) water baptism in a spiritual place of punishment is not hinted at in Scripture nor is it reasonable.

So again, one of the points to look at is, "What exactly is the One Baptism?" As I said, we would need to come to a conclusion on that before we attempt to draw a primary conclusion on the topic of the OP.

And one element raised in the above passage is this: we must be in Him to conclude that we have received remission of sins. That is one issue that has to be discussed because only those that are in Christ can receive remission of sins.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

God is free to forgive sins even in the absence of baptism.

On this we agree, however, we have to discuss another issue in order to clarify where we would be in agreement: Eternal Remission as opposed to Temporal Remission.

We see Jesus forgiving the sins of unbaptized people in several places in the gospels, for example.

This is true, however, it doesn't make your point relevant, because everyone forgiven by Christ in the Gospels still needed to be forgiven in an eternal context.

In other words, men could be forgiven temporally for their sins, but that did not negate their need to be forgiven in Christ.

Christ still had to die for every person He forgave during His ministry that they might be Eternally Redeemed.

Even the thief on the Cross, who was not water baptized, nor shall ever be.

We don't see any of the disciples receiving water baptism on the Day of Pentecost when they are Baptized with the Holy Ghost. It is possible they were and it just isn't mentioned in Scripture, but that would still be a separate event from the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. And making an argument from what Scripture is silent on is never a good idea.

Thus, I do not believe this statement in the creed excludes the hope of universal reconciliation.

And I appreciate your participation, PloverWing. It is looking at the reasons for accepting or rejecting doctrines that we—the Body of Christ—can become unified in doctrine as we are commanded:


1 Corinthians 1:10
King James Version

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.


And it is interesting to note that our brother Paul gives us some insight towards water baptism:


1 Corinthians 1:12-14
King James Version

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;


Why are we identified with Christ?

His death. And His death is at the heart of why we are batized in His Name.

We are in Christ because of our belief in the Gospel.

How then do we make those who do not believe to be in Christ? Will they one day be water baptized in the Name of Christ? Is that the One Baptism of Christian Doctrine?

Again, thanks for your participation!


God bless.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Agreed.

I can say that one person believes God is the Lake of Fire.

But I hope to keep this centered on the topic of the OP, rather than general beliefs between opposing views. If you can't find a thread discussing it—just wait five minutes. lol



It's interesting to note that so far I have yet to see universalists discuss the Book of Life.




They have many verses they feel support their view. In the thread, "Rethinking Hell," the views are given as well as the verses and passages used to support Universal Salvation.




And that is the question—does it?

We agree that Revelation supports Everlasting Separation, Torment, and Punishment, but the question would be—can we impose One Baptism into Universal Salvation?

Thanks for joining the conversation, Brother Mike. This is how we, as a body, come to conclusions. By discussion of God's Word.

God bless.

Thanks for the link to the "Re-Thinking Hell" thread, and indeed my answer wasn't intended to necessarily turn this thread into a debate about Universalism but rather just an elaboration on my answer to your question.

I'll review that other thread in hopes that perhaps it delves into the scriptural basis for Universalism - my curiosity is peaked now