The Incoherencies of Hard Universalism

Michie said:

Some theologians and historians dispute today whether the belief that everyone will be saved (“universalism”) was condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. Nevertheless, the fact that universalism might not have been condemned by that council constitutes nothing more than an interesting historical tidbit for orthodox Christians. Even if some great saints or a significant minority in certain ages of the Church held universalist beliefs, historical orthodox Christianity definitively came to reject universalism. But, given the interest in universalism today, it is helpful to say a few words on that point.

Let us be clear about our terms. Universalists think that all will be saved. Universalists are not saying that everyone will end up in heaven just by good luck; people who believe in the possibility of hell can believe that.[1] Universalists instead want to argue that it is not possible for anyone to end up in hell for eternity. Many defenders of universalism assert God would not be good if he allowed even the possibility of hell. More technically, then, universalists hold that it is a necessary truth that all are saved. This sets universalists apart from theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar or Jacques Maritain who thought we might legitimately hope and pray that all people end up saved. These theologians are not universalists—although they are sometimes called “soft universalists”—because they held it was possible for people to end up in hell, and their views would not be implicated in what I am going to argue against, which is sometimes called “hard universalism.”
If it is a necessary truth that all will be saved, something makes it so. The only way it would be impossible for anyone to go to hell is,

Michie said:

that God could not do otherwise than cause human beings to love him or

1. that human beings could not do otherwise than love God.
2. There is no third option.

Both of these options, however, entail heresy. This is why universalism has been seen as heretical by mainstream Christianity for millennia, for good reason.
Continued below.

The Incoherencies of Hard Universalism

James Dominic Rooney on heresy.

churchlifejournal.nd.edu

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I completely concur. I have been trying to get anyone who espouses UR to admit that for a long time. They hint at it but will not come right out and say it.

For universalism to be accepted…. far too many scriptures must be ignored.

The truth for salvation was specifically given in the doctrinal epistle of Romans. Paul by revelation from Jesus Christ was addressing Israel in areas of chapter 9-11

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The chapter continues to elaborate…but … (for lack of a better term) the “formula” for salvation is just as applicable Gentiles as it was to Israel ….. And either God lied, or He told the truth…. and if He did tell the truth …then it (the Word) cannot contradict itself any place in the Bible.

I don’t know all the scripture that universalists use but I know a few and most everything I see they pluck scripture out from context…. and in a few cases read the word ALL as everyone …all is used in the Bible the same way it is used today.

All without exception = every single person that is living ….or every single person living or dead.

All with distinction = every person within the parameters of the context being spoken.

When you pull a scripture out of context and read it as all (everybody) “without exception” you have a inaccurate translation that you have chiseled out to fit your belief; 1Co 15:22 & 28 are a prime example. Who is God referring to?... both the context and the epistle itself is written to Church of God born again believers 1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Another common scripture is …

1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Who is this written to … leadership within the church of God. But the scripture itself is misleading.

4:10 is better translated … In fact, we labor hard and contend (or are insulted) for this, because we have set our hope in the living God, who is the savior (deliverer or preserver) of all people (believers) especially of the faithful believing ones.

When you read the context of what Paul is writing to Timmy about regarding some of the people in Ephesus…. this scripture makes total sense … The people who were causing contention were born again believers but they had departed from the faith … they were off the Word… but despite being in left field they were still delivered.

Michie said:

Some theologians and historians dispute today whether the belief that everyone will be saved (“universalism”) was condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. Nevertheless, the fact that universalism might not have been condemned by that council constitutes nothing more than an interesting historical tidbit for orthodox Christians. Even if some great saints or a significant minority in certain ages of the Church held universalist beliefs, historical orthodox Christianity definitively came to reject universalism. But, given the interest in universalism today, it is helpful to say a few words on that point.

Let us be clear about our terms. Universalists think that all will be saved. Universalists are not saying that everyone will end up in heaven just by good luck; people who believe in the possibility of hell can believe that.[1] Universalists instead want to argue that it is not possible for anyone to end up in hell for eternity. Many defenders of universalism assert God would not be good if he allowed even the possibility of hell. More technically, then, universalists hold that it is a necessary truth that all are saved. This sets universalists apart from theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar or Jacques Maritain who thought we might legitimately hope and pray that all people end up saved. These theologians are not universalists—although they are sometimes called “soft universalists”—because they held it was possible for people to end up in hell, and their views would not be implicated in what I am going to argue against, which is sometimes called “hard universalism.”

If it is a necessary truth that all will be saved, something makes it so. The only way it would be impossible for anyone to go to hell is,

1. that God could not do otherwise than cause human beings to love him or
2. that human beings could not do otherwise than love God.
3. There is no third option.

Both of these options, however, entail heresy. This is why universalism has been seen as heretical by mainstream Christianity for millennia, for good reason.

Continued below.

The Incoherencies of Hard Universalism

James Dominic Rooney on heresy.

churchlifejournal.nd.edu

Click to expand...

Let me ask you something, is sin more powerful than God? does God hate sin ?

Jeff Saunders said:

Let me ask you something, is sin more powerful than God? does God hate sin ?

Click to expand...

PMFBI but this post does not address the post which was quoted. Please see Jeremiah 13:11-14, Matthew 7:21-23, Romans 1:24, Romans 1:26, Romans 1:28.

Michie said:

Some theologians and historians dispute today whether the belief that everyone will be saved (“universalism”) was condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. Nevertheless, the fact that universalism might not have been condemned by that council constitutes nothing more than an interesting historical tidbit for orthodox Christians. Even if some great saints or a significant minority in certain ages of the Church held universalist beliefs, historical orthodox Christianity definitively came to reject universalism. But, given the interest in universalism today, it is helpful to say a few words on that point.

Let us be clear about our terms. Universalists think that all will be saved. Universalists are not saying that everyone will end up in heaven just by good luck; people who believe in the possibility of hell can believe that.[1] Universalists instead want to argue that it is not possible for anyone to end up in hell for eternity. Many defenders of universalism assert God would not be good if he allowed even the possibility of hell. More technically, then, universalists hold that it is a necessary truth that all are saved. This sets universalists apart from theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar or Jacques Maritain who thought we might legitimately hope and pray that all people end up saved. These theologians are not universalists—although they are sometimes called “soft universalists”—because they held it was possible for people to end up in hell, and their views would not be implicated in what I am going to argue against, which is sometimes called “hard universalism.”

If it is a necessary truth that all will be saved, something makes it so. The only way it would be impossible for anyone to go to hell is,

1. that God could not do otherwise than cause human beings to love him or
2. that human beings could not do otherwise than love God.
3. There is no third option.

Both of these options, however, entail heresy. This is why universalism has been seen as heretical by mainstream Christianity for millennia, for good reason.

Continued below.

The Incoherencies of Hard Universalism

James Dominic Rooney on heresy.

churchlifejournal.nd.edu

Click to expand...

This is very good, from your linked article: "God, by contrast, simply is that actuality, in all its supereminent fullness: infinite Being, the source of every act of being. As such, he is infinitely free precisely because nothing can inhibit or limit the perfect realization of his nature, and thus, as Maximus says, he possesses no gnomic will; for God, deliberative liberty—any “could have been otherwise,” any arbitrary decision among opposed possibilities—would be an impossible defect of his freedom."

And amen to this also!: "God does not require the indeterminacy of the possible in order to be free because he is not some particular determination of Being, some finite reduction of potency to act; he is instead that infinite actuality upon which all ontic possibility depends. And in the calculus of the infinite, any tension between freedom and necessity simply disappears; there is no problem to be resolved because, in regard to the transcendent and infinite fullness of all Being, the distinction is meaningless. God is not a being choosing his nature from among a range of options; he simply is reality as such. And it is only insofar as God is not a being defined by possibility, and is hence infinitely free, that creation inevitably follows from who he is. This in no way alters the truth that creation, in itself, “might not have been,” so long as this claim is understood as a modal definition, a statement of ontological contingency, a recognition that creation receives its being from beyond itself and so has no necessity intrinsic to itself."

"Aseity of God" and "Simplicity of God"

Edit. Upon reading the article more closely, I see the above had been quoted in an attempt to refute something the quote's author had been taken to say, which, as far as I can tell, is not delineated in the quote. My apologies, since without the context of the quote I can't say one way or the other that the author of the article was wrong to see what I didn't see. I had meant to be agreeing with the article, or at least, with the quote. It is not my business to debate anything in this forum. Again, my apologies.