Universalism

[ebia]

I don't understand the nature of the critique in your first paragraph.

For the second, it is not a claim of God's weakness, but of his overall holiness; there is no part of him that can exist in the same spot as sin. This is not weakness, or a lack of power, but an overwhelming holiness.

Sorry, I cannot see how that is anything other than a weakness - and one incompatible with the whole point of incarnation. If we want to know what happens when sin and God coincide we need to read the gospels, not retreat into a stand-offish, almost Islamic, picture of God.

No, but it has been explained to me (it is on my to-read list). That conception of hell is probably one I resonate with the most. Still, I don't particularly care for it in the end, though I would need to read it thoroughly to provide a detailed critique.

You do need to read it. It's a narrative, for the very reason that it needs to be narrative to do what it does. It doesn't reduce well to explanations. It's also not supposed to be 'the answer' but an exploration of aspects of the topic.

 

[wayseer]

But we are nevertheless stakeholders

Stakeholders? We are less than 'stakeholders'. We arrive, if we arrive, by God's grace and that alone - not by our works however high and might such works might appear to the eyes of men.

and at the end of days justice must be done

God's justice - not ours.

And be seen to be done.

Perhaps you should go back to Job.

You appear to be judging God by the standards of men - which are fickle at best and easily seduced by notions of power.

 

[timlamb]

What of children, however, who are younger than the 'age of accountability'? Presumably, they have sin (if you support the doctrine of original sin), but many Christians affirm that they will get into heaven. It seems as though the effectiveness of Jesus sacrifice can be applied to individuals even if they do not have the willpower to claim it. Why can't this same thing happen to individuals past the age of accountability? It is at least theoretically possible.

One way to think of hell, if it must still exist, is as a remedial, purgatorial holding place that purges (rather than punishes) the individual, such that it is not eternal.

I think this "Age of accountability" may be better temed the age of rebellion. It seems to me it is the heart set against God that cannot be cleansed, whether that is in anger or just denial. Romans 1:19,20 state that man is without excuse because God has made Himself known. A child, as Jesus pointed out, excepts faith easily. When a person quits accepting God on faith, they become dead in their sin, and if they do not lose the rebellion later, which the bible says most won't, they die in sin.

 

[Armistead]

Hey Tissue,

I don't know if I have time for another 3000 pages of another UR vs ET thread.

I started my walk with Christ when I was 16. I walked into a Ind. Fud. Baptist church and got saved. It was during a revival and the Pastor preaching was an old time "hollering" preacher from the mountains. Talk about scared. I couldn't even go to the alter the first night because I was so scared, but made it the next night. After that, without question I followed the doctrines of that denomination for years. I taught Sunday School and eventually became the Youth Pastor. I also led Word of Life in our area.

They finally paid me to go to college. I barely got through High School, but put my heart in bible college. It was there questions started arising.
Eventually the church I was in fell apart and split. I left church for years.
During this time I visited every possible denomination I could. I was amazed at all the differences. I never found a church home. Frankly, I just
didn't know what to believe anymore for myself. It was always easier just
to believe what I was told and not think about it.

One thing I concluded early was people without question will follow the belief of whatever church they walked into or grew up in. Regardless, an indoctrination process starts. People seldom take the time to realize that they're giving their minds to a set of belief. There is no real testing or questioning. All questions in the end will result in each denomination being correct.

I decided to put aside all my beliefs on doctrine and study the scriptures without fear. It took four years before I openly admitted I was UR. It was hard, because at that time I was heavily involved in a Southern Baptist Church teaching Sunday School. However the Pastor was great and remains a great friend. We spent hours together going through the scriptures in study and prayer. In the end I had to give up my teaching position due to church rules, but I honesly believe the Pastor is now UR in his heart. He is one of those that UR is possible but will err on torture just in case. I myself could never live that way.

I did later find a UR bible believing church, but still visit and work with my old Southern Baptist Church.

Most of the church after Christ was UR. There were 6 major schools of religion that arose after Christ. Four taught universal salvation, one eternal hell and the other more pagan law mixed with grace. Sadly the church didn't become an agent of torture until they accepted a God that tortures. If you notice all pagan religions teach a form of eternal torture with demons, monsters, ect. It was probably Dante that moved eternal torture to the forefront in the christian movement. Eternal torture existed
in every pagan belief long before Christ. Dante was probably the most responsible for leading the christian church into this pagan doctrine.

Early goverments such as the Romans knew they couldn't defeat the christian movement, so they redefined it and really pushed the teachings of eternal torture. The early church..the RCC, became an agent of torture. In the name of God people were tortured beyond belief. The torture chambers were full of people having their guts rolled up on pins in the name of God. A few million died in the name of God in the most inhumane ways. But the truth is...if God would eternally torture man, it should be OK for man to torture man in the name of God. This seems long ago, but in fact torturing man in the name of God would continue today if not for secualar law. We look how muslims still torture and basically follow the law today. Well, that's how Christianity was just up to a few hundred years ago. Why we have put away our beliefs in torture, we still teach and accept the doctrines of those who took part in the torture of mankind.

Sadly most of Christianity evolved into this line of thinking. Even today those that believe in eternal torture almost glow with a satisfaction that God will torture. It's just the corrupt jealous nature of man.

Here is a good link...This man often debates with the higher ups in the torture belief. I actually saw him debate a well known christian writer on hell. It was after that debate that I started down the path of UR. That was over four years ago.

Understanding Universal Salvation Part One

 

[Armistead]

Here's a good link for understanding UR

Universal Salvation University

 

[timlamb]

I too have had my fill, arguing this issue in the old Unorthedox Theology for months and months. What cannot be reconsiled is that verses, which are intended to proclaim the salvation bought and paid for by Jesus is available to all, are interpreted as guarenteed to all. Verses to the contrary are ignored or read out of context. Salvation IS universal, but it must be accepted, and only a small number will take it. Not everyone wants to be clean.
There are stories of "awakenings" coming out from every deviant belief. The idea that everyone will have the chance after death to be repentant and cleansed is pure fiction and no where in scripture. Even in the tribulation under the wrath of God their hearts will be hardened according to scripture.

God is perfectly righteous and perfectly just and as is stated in Romans 1:19-20, no one has an excuse for their rebellion.
Romans 2:5-12 (New American Standard Bible)

5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11For there is no partiality with God. 12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

Romans 3
Justification by Faith

21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.

 

[wayseer]

Salvation IS universal, but it must be accepted, and only a small number will take it.

Tim, there is more to the universal theology than the issue of salvation. Of course salvation is extended to all - that is not the issue here. Please have a read of the OP.

The OP was talking about 'hell' - that if the concept of 'hell' was removed everybody would be happy and joyful. That there is no hell is a plank in univeralism ideology. It is that thinking that I am questioning.

 

[timlamb]

Tim, there is more to the universal theology than the issue of salvation. Of course salvation is extended to all - that is not the issue here. Please have a read of the OP.

The OP was talking about 'hell' - that if the concept of 'hell' was removed everybody would be happy and joyful. That there is no hell is a plank in univeralism ideology. It is that thinking that I am questioning.

Well, I re-read it and I guess the fact of hell is a given for me (incluing hadies, lake of fire, any mention of eternal punishment), because scripture leaves no doubt if you believe it, the only question is whether you can be redeemed out of it, so that is what I addressed.

 

[wayseer]

OK. But that is what universalism advocates; it removes the concept of hell and therefore judgement and therefore atonement. It is new age thinking wrapped up in religious philosophy laced with appropriate Christian scriptures just to make it sound legit.

 

[Tavita]

OK. But that is what universalism advocates; it removes the concept of hell and therefore judgement and therefore atonement. It is new age thinking wrapped up in religious philosophy laced with appropriate Christian scriptures just to make it sound legit.

As a Universalist (hate labels)..hell is not removed (are you speaking about the Lake of Fire?... it's not either), judgment is not removed, and atonement is DEFINITELY NOT removed.

Are you referring to Unitarian Universalism or Christian Universalism?.. they are different. The Christian Universalist believes in everything you do.. only that it's not 'endless'. I guess we see judgment/punishment differently too... we see it as corrective, a refining fire (and fire hurts!). We also believe... 'behold the kindness and the severity of our God'.

Methinks there is a lot of misunderstanding and ignorance on what the Universalist really believes.

 

[Tissue]

I think this "Age of accountability" may be better temed the age of rebellion. It seems to me it is the heart set against God that cannot be cleansed, whether that is in anger or just denial. Romans 1:19,20 state that man is without excuse because God has made Himself known. A child, as Jesus pointed out, excepts faith easily. When a person quits accepting God on faith, they become dead in their sin, and if they do not lose the rebellion later, which the bible says most won't, they die in sin.

So Jesus' sacrifice is not capable of wiping out all sin? Human willpower is able to override the power of the sacrifice to save?

 

[Tavita]

Just wanting to kickstart another discussion of universalism, as controversial as it is.

I'm sympathetic to the movement myself, but not enough to count myself among their number (yet, perhaps). I do find it practically impossible to be joyful if I include the doctrine of hell in my theology. I find it equally impossible to be melancholy if I remove the doctrine of hell in my theology.

I'm currently digging around some of the early (pre-Augustine) church fathers who did not support a doctrine of hell; I'm also looking in to Carlton Pearson's book 'The Gospel of Inclusion'.

Let's talk.

Why would you feel it impossible to be melancholy if you removed the doctrine of hell?

Which hell are you speaking of?... the place of the dead or the lake of fire?

I ask which 'hell' as most people seem to bring the two together as if they're the same thing or place.

 

[Tissue]

OK. But that is what universalism advocates; it removes the concept of hell and therefore judgement and therefore atonement. It is new age thinking wrapped up in religious philosophy laced with appropriate Christian scriptures just to make it sound legit.

I apologize; my OP wasn't particularly clear. By 'doctrine of hell', I meant the traditional Christian understanding of eternal torture. I think hell is much more likely to be a remedial, purging fire that does not last for all time. Even if it is a bajillion zillion years, God will eventually reconcile.

 

[Tissue]

Why would you feel it impossible to be melancholy if you removed the doctrine of hell?

Because the thought that some people (or, likely, many) will burn for all eternity (that is, forever) is a horrible, atrocious idea that has no parallel for despicability in anything I've ever read. Were it gone, a happy ending is (eventually) guaranteed for all, and there is real joy in that.

I overstated it a little bit; sorrow will certainly not disappear in my lifetime if I can find this believe hold-able, but there will be joy.

Which hell are you speaking of?... the place of the dead or the lake of fire?

The eternal, festering, burning place that Hitler and Gandhi share. I'm aware (though only shallowly) of the distinction that Christian Universalists draw between an eternal hell and a remedial hell (which looks a bit more like purgatory). I've no problem with a non-eternal hell.

 

[timlamb]

OK. But that is what universalism advocates; it removes the concept of hell and therefore judgement and therefore atonement. It is new age thinking wrapped up in religious philosophy laced with appropriate Christian scriptures just to make it sound legit.

I guess most of the ones I've debated call themselves "Christian Universalists, meaning they believe the bible but they add this little point at the end that says we get to keep trying until we get it. Other universalists flat deny the bible and the argument begins farther back at the reality of a creator and sin.

 

[timlamb]

So Jesus' sacrifice is not capable of wiping out all sin? Human willpower is able to override the power of the sacrifice to save?

Cheap argument Tissue, it leaves repentance out of the picture. Part of accepting salvation is a changed life, a heart that desires righteousness. Christs sacrifice was sufficiant but we cannot stay in rebellion. God is all knowing, and if He says those brought to judgement will remain seperated from God then I am sure that it is because of thier choice, not His. He has the power to make you submissive, He can remove you from existance, but apparently, for some reason, He wants our hearts along with our souls. An all or nothing proposition.

 

[Tissue]

Cheap argument Tissue, it leaves repentance out of the picture. Part of accepting salvation is a changed life, a heart that desires righteousness. Christs sacrifice was sufficiant but we cannot stay in rebellion. God is all knowing, and if He says those brought to judgement will remain seperated from God then I am sure that it is because of thier choice, not His. He has the power to make you submissive, He can remove you from existance, but apparently, for some reason, He wants our hearts along with our souls. An all or nothing proposition.

But, once saved, would not our hearts naturally and necessarily follow? Once hell is experienced, and heaven is experienced afterwards, wouldn't the overwhelming goodness and holiness of God make such an impression upon the individual that the heart would leap into his care?

For those who repent, no purging flames. For those who don't, purging flames.

 

[timlamb]

But, once saved, would not our hearts naturally and necessarily follow? Once hell is experienced, and heaven is experienced afterwards, wouldn't the overwhelming goodness and holiness of God make such an impression upon the individual that the heart would leap into his care?

For those who repent, no purging flames. For those who don't, purging flames.

Revelation tells us that in the midst of God's wrath men will shake their fists and curse him, their hearts will be hardened all the more. I don't think God, who can see all, has any expectation of further repentance aft6er that.

 

[Tissue]

You speak as though the infinitude of God can be blocked by the finitude of humanity. That does not seem rational.

What you may mean, however, is that God respects the will of humanity. For this, in Scripture nor in the deliverance of reason to suppose that God considers the choices made by humanity's free will 'unassailable', or noble enough to warrant its protection, even in the light of eternal damnation.

A parent allows their child freedom to make choices, and even allows them the freedom to make mistakes for the sake of education. But what education can be derived from a freedom that results in eternal damnation? What sort of a parent would allow that?

 

[timlamb]

You speak as though the infinitude of God can be blocked by the finitude of humanity. That does not seem rational.

What you may mean, however, is that God respects the will of humanity. For this, in Scripture nor in the deliverance of reason to suppose that God considers the choices made by humanity's free will 'unassailable', or noble enough to warrant its protection, even in the light of eternal damnation.

A parent allows their child freedom to make choices, and even allows them the freedom to make mistakes for the sake of education. But what education can be derived from a freedom that results in eternal damnation? What sort of a parent would allow that?

And once a child is eighteen if that child still rebells and effects other family members? if that child runs away and joins a cult or gets into prostitution and drugs? Free will is part of our culture and choices have consequences.

I don't have to rationize God, I believe His word. I never said God can be blocked, but only that He will alow us our choice and many will make the wrong one. Read Romans 1:18-32: when man rebells, at some point, God lets them go.