Universalism: pros and cons

Nadiine · Jan 19, 2008

CaDan said:
There are different degrees of Pietism. It is not necessarily Pelagianism.

Which is why my post asking for specification when you make these comments insinuating piety, is even more relevant...

Crazy Liz · Jan 19, 2008

Nadiine said:
K. You should have a hard time, but I never used that example. I NEVER compare a parent punishing a child to eternal condemnation becuz it's not even close to the same; by degree or by offense. Biblically, a person going to eternal torment isn't one of God's children either.

My example was specifically about warning of impending danger/harm, not the actual consequence.

A parent uses threats or warnings of danger in order to get their child to respond and learn - ultimately it is something the parent is doing for the child's best interest.
A parent NOT warning a child of what can harm them is negligent and not doing their job.

Here's where I see the analogy breaking down. The example most often used of a parent warning a child is teaching the child not to run out in the street without looking for traffic. In this example and the others I recall, the warning is to avoid dangers caused by OTHERS. The parent isn't saying, "If you run out in the street without looking, I will deliberately run over you and kill you." A good parent would not deliberately run over their child and kill them. Warning a child of dangers posed by others is one thing, but warning a child off something that will be the parent's deliberate action - not corrective action, but destructive action - does not fit the analogy.

Can you find a better analogy?

Nadiine · Jan 19, 2008

Crazy Liz said:
Here's where I see the analogy breaking down. The example most often used of a parent warning a child is teaching the child not to run out in the street without looking for traffic. In this example and the others I recall, the warning is to avoid dangers caused by OTHERS. The parent isn't saying, "If you run out in the street without looking, I will deliberately run over you and kill you." A good parent would not deliberately run over their child and kill them. Warning a child of dangers posed by others is one thing, but warning a child off something that will be the parent's deliberate action - not corrective action, but destructive action - does not fit the analogy.

Can you find a better analogy?

K, again, the issue isn't the consequence - or who's hand it comes by... the issue is why you USED the warning/threat.
As I see it, the focus is being placed onto the wrong aspect here. Becuz NO form of consequence I can come up with will be equivalent to that of Gehenna - then we run into the same issue SD had with thinking my analogy isn't befitting the consequence
(does being spanked compare to torment forever?)

lol

There's danger at the end of the road & we're being told what it is ahead of time.
I think we'd have a right to be angry if we weren't warned about Gehenna if it's in fact a reality. Would we rather NOT know that if it's true?

Feel free to change it to anything. If God WANTS us in hell or Gehenna then He wouldn't bother repeating warning after warning about the consequence as I view this.

CaDan · Jan 19, 2008

Nadiine said:
K, again, the issue isn't the consequence - or who's hand it comes by... the issue is why you USED the warning/threat.

The problem lies in conflating the concepts of "warning" and "threat."

Tkjjc · Jan 19, 2008

I just loved this so I thought I would just paste it here for you to consider:

[SIZE=+3]This covers my reported behavior:[/SIZE]

All of the next couple of post can be found here
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm
from [SIZE=+3]Keith DeRose

[/SIZE][SIZE=+3]
[/SIZE]
Many have e-mailed to warn me of the dangers of believing and promoting universalism. Two closely related dangers have been stressed. Some focus on how important Christians will think it is to spread the gospel if they accept universalism, and warn that belief in universalism would undercut evangelism. Others focus on the potential detrimental effect of promoting universalism on potential Christians themselves, supposing many will think something along the lines of, "Well, I'll be OK anyway, so why bother to accept Christ?"
I do not think that belief in universalism should have the above effects. Here it is important to note that universalism -- at least the position I've been referring to by the term -- does not imply that it is unimportant whether one accepts Christ in this life, or sooner rather than later. All that universalism per se rules out here is the "infinitely big stick": that one will be eternally barred from heaven (and perhaps consigned to hell) if one fails to accept Christ in this life. As I've stressed, universalism itself does not rule out that there will be punishment for some after death. Indeed, it does not rule out that there will be a lot of punishment for some. So it's not only consistent with the existence of sticks, but with very big -- indeed, immensely huge -- sticks, though of course universalists will disagree amongst themselves about the nature and size of whatever sticks there are. Universalism does rule out the infinitely big stick. But it would indeed be very sad if Christians believed that there is strong reason or motivation for accepting Christ in this life only if one faces an infinitely big stick if one fails to do so. Universalism also guarantees that all humans will eventually attain the tremendous carrot. But does the fact that things will eventually be OK for someone remove the motivation -- for herself and for others -- to improve her lot in the meantime? Those who believe they are going to heaven, whether they're universalists or not, believe everything will eventually be OK for them, but few lose all interest in their well-being in the meantime. And those who believe that certain other people (say, loved ones) are destined for heaven don't lose interest in promoting their well-being in the meantime. Why, then, should accepting that everyone will eventually be OK sap all motivation for promoting their well-being in the meantime -- especially since it's at least consistent with universalism that that "meantime" can be a very long time?
It's also worth pointing out that though the universalist believes all will attain heaven, it's consistent with universalism that what one's heavenly existence is like may depend on one's earthly life. Thus the universalist may hold (though perhaps some will not) that how one lives one's earthly life -- perhaps crucially including whether one accepts Christ in this life -- will have eternal significance, even if it doesn't determine whether one (eventually at least) attains heaven.
But even if I'm right that belief in universalism should not have the bad effects described above, I don't doubt that belief in universalism will have such bad effects, at least on some. After all, some people claim that belief in universalism would have such a bad effect on themselves, and I'd be a fool to suppose I can judge better than them what the effect of the belief would be on them.
But those who press the potential dangers of belief in universalism seem to neglect the corresponding potential dangers of their own position. Indeed, many who press the concern about the detrimental effects of accepting universalism go on to explicitly state that there is no danger on the other side as part of their case for resisting the promotion of universalism.
But they are wrong. There are dangers on the other side. I have received many e-mails from those who have related that the doctrine of eternal hell was the biggest stumbling block to their accepting Christianity, and many others said that believing that doctrine interfered greatly with their ability to love God. Now, one doesn't have to accept universalism to avoid the doctrine of eternal hell -- one can accept some view on which those who don't make it to heaven are (eventually or right away) annihilated. But, for many, universalism is the view that rings most true, and the version of Christianity they'd be most likely to accept.
Suppose for a minute that universalism is correct, and suppose that these people are right to think that there is no way that God would allow some people to be forever excluded. In that case, promoting the false view that God will allow such exclusion is doing great harm. Indeed, many universalists, myself included, believe that non-universalism is one of the most harmful falsehoods ever promoted in the Christian church.
There is danger on both sides. Either way, if one is wrong, one may be doing harm to people by advocating one's false view. Indeed, either way, even if one is right, one can do some harm to others by advocating the truth one believes. (Even if universalism is true, my promoting that truth may cause some to lose their faith, and may thereby harm them. Likewise, if universalism is false, those who declare it false may thereby harm some people.) One possible response to these dangers, whichever side one is on, would be to remain silent on the issue. Another response is to present one's thinking on the issue for others' consideration. That is the path I have chosen -- as have those who write to oppose me. If I have caused you think about the issue, to study the Bible (especially important here is reading not just the passages for and against universalism that have been presented, but also the material that surrounds them and gives them their context), and to prayerfully consider the issue, then I am happy, even if I haven't convinced you of my position.

Nadiine · Jan 19, 2008

I'm going to have to read that when I have more time & when my eyes can handle going thru it all.

I'll say this just in general before reading it.

I don't honestly care what the emotional or intellectual rationalizations about universal salvation are - the only thing that actually matters is if it's in fact true.

On face value, even the crucifixion sounds pretty nonsensical as far as being necessary to save people. The Bible even claims that it sounds foolish to the average person.
God used the simple things to confound the wise. His ways & reasons are beyond us. So we use trust in His word.

IF condemnation is true ( and scripture is clear that not all are entering His domain) then it's important to acknowledge it no matter what we dislike about it. I hate the sacrificial system - I"m an avid animal lover & activist, if anyone thinks I enjoy the slaughters or God's necessity for them, you're nuts.

I concede to it becuz God established it - He has a purpose. I accept Gehenna the same way - dislike it, but God has purpose.

Tkjjc · Jan 19, 2008

I am going to list all the arguments for and against it, by a person who actually believes in universalism. We can start by stating exactly what it is. I read this and it closely follows my way of thinking and confirms what the Bible teaches.

I should be clear at the outset about what I'll mean -- and won't mean -- by "universalism." As I'll use it, "universalism" refers to the position that eventually all human beings will be saved and will enjoy everlasting life with Christ. This is compatible with the view that God will punish many people after death, and many universalists accept that there will be divine retribution, although some may not. What universalism does commit one to is that such punishment won't last forever. Universalism is also incompatible with various views according to which some will be annihilated (after or without first receiving punishment). These views can agree with universalism in that, according to them, punishment isn't everlasting, but they diverge from universalism in that they believe some will be denied everlasting life. Some universalists intend their position to apply animals, and some to fallen angels or even to Satan himself, but in my hands, it will be intended to apply only to human beings.( and I agree with this) In short, then, it's the position that every human being will, eventually at least, make it to the party.

Nadiine · Jan 19, 2008

Now, one doesn't have to accept universalism to avoid the doctrine of eternal hell -- one can accept some view on which those who don't make it to heaven are (eventually or right away) annihilated. But, for many, universalism is the view that rings most true, and the version of Christianity they'd be most likely to accept.

In skimming over that post letter this stuck out to me.
I always ask WHY they want to think this is true.
The reason why is becuz IT BRINGS COMFORT and SECURITY - we don't want to imagine the penalty.
That is our human nature.

The issue again is WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS and it's very clear there is a separation of sheep & goats/ wheat & tares.
Of course we all want security and don't want to imagine condemnation. & if we don't want that, we need to act on God's invitation of Salvation & repentance. Then it can be avoided completely.

This is typical, people want the best of both worlds with little effort or suffering, but that isn't Christianity.

Nadiine · Jan 19, 2008

What is Universalism?

I am going to list all the arguments for and against it, by a person who actually believes in universalism. We can start by stating exactly what it is. I read this and it closely follows my way of thinking and confirms what the Bible teaches.

Great, but it doesn't change Biblical truth on the matter which is crystal clear.

As I mentioned, you cannot base doctrinal truth on human rationality, becuz even the cross itself (crucifixion of Christ) IS FOOLISH at face value - and that is the bedrock of Christianity. God says it's foolish to all except who are saved.
He says that He uses the simple things to confound the wise, on purpose..
If we used a pro and con approach to doctrine, we most likely would rule out quite a few things in our Bible or possibly not even follow Christianity at all. Do it with Baptism, communion, church attendance, giving offerings, certain spiritual gifts, the Law, OT battles, ceremonial rituals, animal sacrifice, etc.

It's one thing to search them out for discussion purposes, it's quite another to base spiritual truth on those rationalizations.
Even IF we came up with more cons for the truth of Christ needing to die on the cross, it doesn't make the cross "a false doctrine" becuz it wasn't logical enough to us.
(even worse, alot of people are basing their pros & cons on ignorance. They haven't studied the OT Law & the sacrificial system or atonement, aspects of sin, ... or how grace didn't remove the OT law from being in effect. When you study those things, the reality & necessity of Gehenna becomes alot more clear & more rational.
So people are making uneducated assessments based on asthetics without the study of those other doctrines that reveal universal laws at play which God is operating by).

I'd also make one last note, God's moral law keeps many away from Christianity, REPENTANCE keeps most away from Christianity. Plus, the OT laws bother people about God, God wiping out whole cities w/ women & children keeps most away....

Do we remove restrictions on sin becuz that way more people would be Christians?

If we're going to rationalize what "offends people", then look to the very basics of what Christianity is, its history & what it calls us to do.
NO ONE seeks God on their own, HE has to draw them, HE has to give them the measure of faith it takes to even accept anything. So just thinking the removal of "hell" via Universalism, will 'reel them all in like fish' is a false hope.

The truth Jesus & His apostles preached offended many - but it never changed their message.

Crazy Liz · Jan 19, 2008

Nadiine said:
Great, but it doesn't change Biblical truth on the matter which is crystal clear.

Now that I know you're only pretending to be infallible, I can disregard statements like this.

As I mentioned, you cannot base doctrinal truth on human rationality, becuz even the cross itself (crucifixion of Christ) IS FOOLISH at face value - and that is the bedrock of Christianity. God says it's foolish to all except who are saved.

More useful information. You're only persuaded by nonsense.

He says that He uses the simple things to confound the wise, on purpose..
If we used a pro and con approach to doctrine, we most likely would rule out quite a few things in our Bible or possibly not even follow Christianity at all. Do it with Baptism, communion, church attendance, giving offerings, certain spiritual gifts, the Law, OT battles, ceremonial rituals, animal sacrifice, etc.

So you are unwilling to participate in this thread according to the parameters set forth by the OP.

Lucky for you she has promised not to request its closure.

It's one thing to search them out for discussion purposes, it's quite another to base spiritual truth on those rationalizations.
Even IF we came up with more cons for the truth of Christ needing to die on the cross, it doesn't make the cross "a false doctrine" becuz it wasn't logical enough to us.
(even worse, alot of people are basing their pros & cons on ignorance. They haven't studied the OT Law & the sacrificial system or atonement, aspects of sin, ... or how grace didn't remove the OT law from being in effect.

Perhaps we have considered it, but have decided it is only one narrative and not the overarching metanarrative that explains God, the universe and everything.

When you study those things, the reality & necessity of Gehenna becomes alot more clear & more rational.

So people are making uneducated assessments based on asthetics without the study of those other doctrines that reveal universal laws at play which God is operating by).

Since we know you are no more educated than we are, and are only pretending to know more than the rest of us, this doesn't help you, either.

Let's get real.

I'd also make one last note, God's moral law keeps many away from Christianity, REPENTANCE keeps most away from Christianity. Plus, the OT laws bother people about God, God wiping out whole cities w/ women & children keeps most away....

What does repentance have to do with God wiping out whole cities, including children incapable of repenting?

Do we remove restrictions on sin becuz that way more people would be Christians?

If we're going to rationalize what "offends people", then look to the very basics of what Christianity is, its history & what it calls us to do.
NO ONE seeks God on their own, HE has to draw them, HE has to give them the measure of faith it takes to even accept anything. So just thinking the removal of "hell" via Universalism, will 'reel them all in like fish' is a false hope.

Who thinks that?

The truth Jesus & His apostles preached offended many - but it never changed their message.

Yet it seems, after sifting away all the pretense, you want universalists to change their message because it offends you.

Have you ever thought of it that way?

Rajni · Jan 19, 2008

From Post #49

Wait, is there really still an arguement, Universalism is a Heresy.

That's what they said about Galileo's claim that the Sun is stationary, too.

Rajni · Jan 19, 2008

From #76

I'm as chatty as they come. What's your favourite colour? Do you part your hair on the right or the left? Boxers or briefs? Socks and sandals? Tea or coffee?

Click to expand...

Mine's purple! I part my hair in the middle, love warm socks in the winter and sandals in the summer, and I love coffee and Chamomile tea!

Rajni · Jan 19, 2008

From #80

Anybody want to have a go at guessing the Boundries of the Limits of our alledged Free Will...?

Sure, I'll give it a shot, lol!

We had no choice as to such things as trivial as our eye-color, hair-color, gender, nationality, home planet, parents, or even whether or not we wanted to be born with a sinful nature, or to even be born in the first place.

I don't believe our will is free. We have choices we can make, but they're limited. Our wills are controlled by things outside our control -- circumstances, brain chemistry, personality -- things that God Himself is in full control of.

So human "free will" is not sufficient enough to operate as the Trump Card it's made out to be in nullifying God's salvific power in our lives.

Rajni · Jan 19, 2008

From #105

That is a great commentary. I've read it in the past and found it very helpful.

I just loved this so I thought I would just paste it here for you to consider: "Many have e-mailed to warn me of the dangers of believing and promoting universalism. Two closely related dangers have been stressed. Some focus on how important Christians will think it is to spread the gospel if they accept universalism, and warn that belief in universalism would undercut evangelism. .... "

Rajni · Jan 19, 2008

From #108

Universalism is based on the desire that all mankind be saved. God has this very same desire, as Scripture shows us -- He desires that all men be saved. We are to be like Him. If we are to be like Him, and He desires that all men be saved, and we, in turn, manifest this desire, the problem is .... ???

I always ask WHY they want to think this is true. The reason why is becuz IT BRINGS COMFORT and SECURITY - we don't want to imagine the penalty. That is our human nature.

Nadiine · Jan 19, 2008

chaela said:
From #108

Universalism is based on the desire that all mankind be saved. God has this very same desire, as Scripture shows us -- He desires that all men be saved. We are to be like Him. If we are to be like Him, and He desires that all men be saved, and we, in turn, manifest this desire, the problem is .... ???

The problem is, God has a PERMISSIVE WILL - where He allows us to make a choice, and since Hell & Gehenna exist, He can WILL us to be saved, yet allows us TO BE LOST (by our choice of rejection of Christ & refusal to repent unto death).
Read John 17 about Judas.

The problem is, we're warned in scripture repeatedly about a consequence of NOT entering His Kingdom.

The problem is, Universalism SOUNDS LOVELY, but it isn't taught in scripture & isn't reality.

Tkjjc · Jan 19, 2008

The truth Jesus & His apostles preached offended many - but it never changed their message

Most of who it offended though was the Religious Leaders of the day, as well as the political leaders. This begs to question then who had the power at the time. Preaching of freedom and salvation coming absolutely free without the cost of burdening oneself with the "doctrines" of the day, and this made Christianity the most destructive practice known to the people who had the power. All a person had to do, was to commit themselves and ask for their own personal forgiveness, of the sins they had committed, and live now in the flesh totally free.

Religion dictated that you must go through another intercessor to receive this salvation, and that there were religious rules to follow, as well. We now know this to be false, as now we can readily read for ourselves what the founders of this new freedom taught. We know know by reading Jesus's own words who His message was for and intended for. He broke those yokes, and not only broke them, He shattered them, taking ALL power from the leaders, and giving it to the people to make up their own minds, by their own free will, which master they would serve.

Problem then arose as to whom would the Father call to Himself? We know from reading scriptures that no one comes unless they are called. This is stated emphatically. The problem that I have with "eternal" torments is with the simple yet most important fact concerning Christ Himself. He came to reconcile ALL to God. How is one then reconciled and then not reconciled? This is a contradiction in meaning. He came to save ALL mankind, but yet there are those who say He came to save only "some" mankind. Did He fail in this mission. Did God fail? Does God lie?

We do not have the choice to be born into death, by Adam and his curse, right? But you say we have a choice then to live? Because Jesus came to give life to the world, and BREAK that curse of death, and fulfill the promise to Abraham. Does God now break promises? Why would Paul say to let Satan kill the body, so that the spirit may be saved by Christ?

1st Cr 5:5
to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Granted it DOES say, "may", and is no sort of guarantee. But that also leaves a VERY strong doubt as to whether a person who had died, in sin, cannot EVER be saved, when the passage says it "may" be saved. This verse here is a direct contradiction to that doctrine which supports an "either or" claim. In "the Day of the Lord Jesus", is a day which most theologians agree HAS NOT happened yet. So how then "may" a spirit be saved, after the flesh is destroyed?

People who argue against universalism think that most of us do not believe in a punishment to come for the unbeliever, which is false. I don't know what it is, not do I have any desire to go through it. That was the Promise of Christ's coming. To atone for the sins committed, and by asking for forgiveness it is then granted. This is to God's Glory, and so by sending His Only Begotten Son for that purpose, He truly has broken that curse from Adam. We ALL shall live. Some will be at a supper of the Lamb, while others will be facing judgment and then punishment. This is not in dispute.

The only thing in dispute, is this doctrine of eternal torment, which is paganistic in origin, including this doctrine of "hell". It goes directly against what the promise was and is. How does one receive a promise of eternal life, then to have that life tormented for eternity? If this were me, and I didn't know Jesus, or even God for that matter, and I died? I would much rather just be totally extinguished from existence. Wouldn't you? Maybe this is the second death? I don't know, nor do I want to find out.

The Bible cannot ever contradict itself, otherwise it would be a lie, and then none of it should be believed. Do you agree or not? If then you do agree that this is the case, we ALWAYS must then look at EVERY single Word in the Word of God, and how it was intended to be used, and the intention of the writer, and let scripture interpret scripture. Not for the sake of a particular belief, or doctrine, but for the sake of the Truth. It cannot lie. Period. Why WAS the word Hell used and translated for different words, when it should have been used in a different term? What about the word Eternity? I can reason along with this, reread my first paragraph. Those in power, required power. When they lost it in Jesus and His followers, they took captive the imaginations of newly believing minds, giving way to doctrines of devils.

I have looked at the pros and cons of most of the doctrines of men. Most of the religious divisions of Christianity. Some are way way out there, and some have A LOT of Truth in them. We must discern what is Truth, and what we wish to be truth. And ultimately let God speak for Himself. His Word is there, His Son is there, and His Spirit is there. all we need to do, is just ask.

CaDan · Jan 19, 2008

Nadiine said:
The problem is, Universalism SOUNDS LOVELY, but it isn't taught in scripture & isn't reality.

Does Scripture teach anything or do people use Scripture to teach things?

Rajni · Jan 19, 2008

The problem is, God has a PERMISSIVE WILL - where He allows us to make a choice, and since Hell & Gehenna exist, He can WILL us to be saved, yet allows us TO BE LOST (by our choice of rejection of Christ & refusal to repent unto death).

Hell was never understood to be the everlasting torment that it's made out to be. In the OT, hell was always the grave. No devils with pitchforks, fiery pits, or fat-free Ranch dressing (the worst of torments). All punishment was seen as either temporal, in this life, or death and doing time as a corpse in the grave. That was the extent of it. Since Christ came to seek and save that which was lost -- this message undergirded by parables dealing with something being lost telling of how the searching did not end until the lost subject was found--there is no reason to believe that a lost state is a permanent one. Jesus came to save that which was lost. If it's lost, He will seek it till He finds it and save it. He isn't going to leave the job undone. (It's one of the enviable perks of being omnipotent, lol!)

Tkjjc · Jan 19, 2008

chaela said:
Hell was never understood to be the everlasting torment that it's made out to be. In the OT, hell was always the grave. No devils with pitchforks, fiery pits, or fat-free Ranch dressing (the worst of torments). All punishment was seen as either temporal, in this life, or death and doing time as a corpse in the grave. That was the extent of it. Since Christ came to seek and save that which was lost -- this message undergirded by parables dealing with something being lost telling of how the searching did not end until the lost subject was found--there is no reason to believe that a lost state is a permanent one. Jesus came to save that which was lost. If it's lost, He will seek it till He finds it and save it. He isn't going to leave the job undone. (It's one of the enviable perks of being omnipotent, lol!)

Universalism: pros and cons

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I remember orange CF

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

I remember orange CF

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency