Universalist Denominations

[Rev. Smith]

Interesting that you present your denominations dogma as fact. While many, especially protestant, denominations think as you do, not all - or even most think so. Opinion, no matter how sincere or dearly held remains just that - opinion. Did not Paul teach that onlu in the essentials is unity required? We must all be careful not to place a stumbling block in our brothers way by insisting on our dogmas as a test of faith.

Jesus made it clear that it's a DECISION one must make. Universalism teaches something totally different - that we are all basically good and that we are all going to heaven.

Universalism has no opinion on the "goodness" or "badness" of mankind. It teaches that no matter how bad a man may be he will, one day thorough Christ be redeemed, if not in this life then in Sheol.

Christianity teaches that we are all inherently bad, or sinful, and that we need Jesus to cover our sins and give us our assured place alongside Him in Heaven.

Uhm... No, your Church may teach this, and many - such as the calvanists and neo-calvinists do. Others, such as mine, teach that mankind, made in His image, is the pinnical and purpose of creation. We belive that it is our duty as God's most perfect work to live in perfect accord with his will. (By the way, we have no position, for or against, Universalism)

It's like oil and water. You must choose either Christianity OR Universalism. It cannot be both.

Well - YOU must choose, many many MANY people manage to be Christian and belive in universalism just the same. They manage to be Christian republicans (how I have no idea), Christian Calvinists, Christian Pelegians, Dispensatioalist and so on and so on. We all try to understand God's will, His scriptures and His Mind. We are a diverse bunch, and that leads to doiverse opinions.

On the other hand Sack my friend, I do sometimes wish I had your certainty, that I could just stand there and make pronouncments on behalf of God and not feel compelled to treat every question as weighty and serious and deserveing of prayer and study and discussion. It would be easier, but God didn't wire me that way.

 

[Im_A]

i'm starting to wonder, the more and more i think about this, if how one thinks about universalism, if it is based solely on the way one views themselves.

if we continually think about the idea that Jesus was thinking about me on the cross, then i think we will have a seculisionist outlook on it. we begin to ignore the scriptures that talk about, God's wants to bring all His children back to Him. we begin to ignore the fact that Jesus died for the sins of the world.

but i think it's a hard road to give up this idea that "i am special" for the sake of thinking "everyone is special."

 

[Charlie V]

but i think it's a hard road to give up this idea that "i am special" for the sake of thinking "everyone is special."

I think both.

Though there is a joke-bumper sticker which reads something like:

"Remember, you're special, just like everybody else."

It's funny because it sounds non-sequetor, but I don't think it really is.

And by the way, re: Rev Smith's post..
Rev Smith, GREAT POST! When I finish this post I'm sending some reputation your way.

Charlie

(I sent tattedsaint some reputation too for his contribution, I enjoy his posts whenever I read them.)

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

I agree.

In fact, I wonder what those arguing against universal salvation intend to accomplish.

The fact is, before the Holy Spirit revealed His truth to me, whereby I became universalist, I cried at night over the doctrine of hell. I was a nervous wreck. I raged at God. I couldn't understand how God could allow anyone to suffer for ALL ETERNITY.

If the Holy Spirit had not revealed His truth to me, I am convinced I would either have become atheist or had eternal contempt for God.

I have heard from atheists and agnostics here that the only way they could ever believe in Christianity is if they believed, as I do, in universalism.

So I wonder--are those who are arguing against universal salvation trying to convince atheists never to convert to Christianity, or trying to deconvert me away from Christianity, or both? Because they're certainly not winning anybody into Christianity!

I can't imagine any non-Christian saying, "OH, he SENDS people to ETERNAL TORMENT.. sounds like a GREAT GUY, I'd LOVE to worship him!!"

Charlie

This is exactly my experience. I struggle with the thought of deconverting precisely because the doctrine of hell still hangs heavily on my mind. And I've found that most people are far more receptive to my witness once they hear that I'm a Christian universalist, than otherwise. Of course, some people, because of the literalist way they read the Bible, beleive that there is no room for the doctrine of universalism. I respect that, but I can't agree.

Of course, there is a third theological position, what I call the theology of the damned. In that system, one beleives in Christ and in hell, but rejects the salvation he offers, either as an act of commisseration, or in the hope that God might see it as a sacrificial offering and lessen the suffering of the damned. I am trying to get the strength to do this, but it is hard.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Rev. Smith]

This is exactly my experience. I struggle with the thought of deconverting precisely because the doctrine of hell still hangs heavily on my mind. And I've found that most people are far more receptive to my witness once they hear that I'm a Christian universalist, than otherwise. Of course, some people, because of the literalist way they read the Bible, beleive that there is no room for the doctrine of universalism. I respect that, but I can't agree.

Hell, with fire and brimstone, probably doesn't even exist - at least as the majority of churches teach it. According to the old testament (you know, the direct revelation of God to his choosen people) - when we die we reside in Sheol, a place of waiting fore judgement.

Revelation teaches that there is a lake of fire prepared for Lucifer and his Angels, and that certain souls of men will be cast into it. We are told that this is the "second death", which implies finality.

After a lot of reading of scripture I have concluded that the Jews are right (no surprise), we will die, we will go to the perfectly pleasent Sheol. There, Peter promises, Jesus will preach the good news that all might be saved. In the end MOST will be saved. A few diehards and holdouts and the Demonics will be cast into the lake, and cease to be. No eternal torment, no brimstone - just nothing for those who are cast away. For the rest, Paradise and doing whatever work it is God will have for us next. (a thread of its own - Revelation makes it certain that there is somthing more coming, that we are only part of a much bigger work)

I may well be wrong, I am just a man and can claim no message from God or inspiration to write an new Epistle, but I take comfort in the fact that the brimstone crowd can offer nothing in the way of compelling proof from scripture.

Of course, there is a third theological position, what I call the theology of the damned. In that system, one beleives in Christ and in hell, but rejects the salvation he offers, either as an act of commisseration, or in the hope that God might see it as a sacrificial offering and lessen the suffering of the damned. I am trying to get the strength to do this, but it is hard.

Just my thoughts.

Brave thinking, but if I'm right - stay with Christ, for the very few who relect all hope and grace there is the charity of the second death. He promised that he would give us his peace, and I think he will keep that promise. The Peace of paradise for the sheep and the peace of oblivian for the goats.

 

[Charlie V]

Waiting for the Verdict,

Thanks for your comments, I do want to mention one thing regarding this..

Of course, some people, because of the literalist way they read the Bible, beleive that there is no room for the doctrine of universalism. I respect that, but I can't agree.

This is selective literalism. They've accepted the literal interpretation of some verses, as translated, and rejected the literal interpretation of other verses.

They do not take literally Jesus as the "savior of the world," who "will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth," or the dozens and dozens of other verses which, if taken literally, can lead to only one possible conclusion: The salvation of all mankind.

Charlie

 

[Im_A]

thank you Charlie V for the kind words and the reps

i checked out that tentmaker site. would almost seem like this tentmaker is their own denomination, hehe. all i can say is wow. i'm not even talking about the artilce about universalism, i was blown away on the article of the "unforgivable sin." blown away so much, i had to tell my friend about it.

but on the topic of the universalism, i like the end quot of Charle's Schmitt.

"Is God, who is sovereign Lord, destined to possess the ultimate allegiance and obedience of only about 3% of all the billions who have sprung from His creative hand? Shall the absolute majority of all these created beings perpetuate hate and blasphemy against their blessed Creator throughout an endless eternity? Is Jesus, who died, effecting the death blow to all sin and to the works of Satan (I Jn. 3:8), destined to reign in a universe where sin shall exist in staggering proportions throughout eternity? The counsels of God, according to the Sacred Scripture, have declared an emphatic NO! Through the consuming fires of God's holy Love ... God has deigned to cause all everywhere eventually to drop the sword of proud rebellion and willingly acclaim the Lordship of our Jesus, and that to the glory of God (Phil. 2:10-11)! Have we hereby done despite to the justice and holiness of God? No, unlike those who hold the opposing view, we have rather fully satisfied it against all sin and rebellion! Have we hereby maligned the sovereign love and mercy of God? No, we have rather upheld it in its infinite scope!"

 

[spinningtutu]

I do believe in a form of annihilationism, yes, though perhaps I understand the concept a bit differently than others might. I do not believe in eternal torment, except to say that the torment that some people feel in the here and now is of the eternal quality - it never ends for them in this life. But certainly not the mythical hell some believe in.

Paxigoth refers to himself in third person when Paxigoth is in the hypomanic state of his bipolar disorder like he is right now.

I reconcile my faith with Biblical passages that appear to support universalism by understanding them as metaphors for the ride-reaching and accessible grace and acceptance and love that is available and God-given to all people here and now regardless of what people do with it. Furthermore, I interpret scripture in non supernaturalistic terms (but in supranaturalistic terms). I do not pick and choose passages, I pick all passages but I recognise a tension in interpretation and while I try to interpret contextually I also realise that no single person can interpret perfectly. The word of God isn't just infallible, the word of God is inerrant. Unfortunately, the "Bible" isn't the "word of God". Jesus is the word of God and the Bible is the place where Jesus is found. Ultimately the relevance of any passage (biblical, gnostic or modern) stands or falls on its relevance to Jesus. So no, I'm not particularly concerned about some parts of the OT.

For the record, my interpretive lens to all such areas is not liberalism (people here think it is). Actually, it is existentialism. Universalism is a good liberal myth but it makes no sense in reality.

Do you believe in annihillationism, eternal torment, or what?

Why do you refer to yourself in the third person?

How do you reconcile your faith with the many Biblical passages which support universalism? Do you disbelieve in universalism simply by picking and choosing scriptures and not accepting the word of God as infallible?

(Sorry, that last two questions are questions universalists hear the "flip side" of often, so I couldn't resist asking.)

Charlie

 

[corvus_corax]

thank you Charlie V for the kind words and the reps

i checked out that tentmaker site. would almost seem like this tentmaker is their own denomination, hehe. all i can say is wow. i'm not even talking about the artilce about universalism, i was blown away on the article of the "unforgivable sin."

Can you give a direct link for it?
Is it THIS one, or a different one?
Thanks in advance!

I love the tentmaker site. Thanks to it and people like Charlie V, I can now look at Christianity (not the "christianity" that is threatened by many christians) at not feel like Im going to vomit.
This is the one and only message I have heard from Christians that shows me that the God of the bible may actually be a LOVING God, one who actually cares about us and doesnt just say He does.
As I said a few months ago, after first discovering Universalism, I havent converted, but at least now I can look at the Bible and it's message without rejecting its message out of hand. I used to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" due to what I perceived (due to my time as a Christian) as the blatant hypocrisy and horrific egotism of a calvanist deity. Now.....

...well at least now I can look at Christianity (thanks to universalism) with a bit more of an open mind.

 

[Charlie V]

Can you give a direct link for it?
Is it THIS one, or a different one?
Thanks in advance!

That's one of the many links inside the main site:

http://www.tentmaker.org/

Some recommends inside the main link:

In the "books" section, you'll find a treasure-trove of information on universal salvation.

In the "FAQ" section, you'll find answers to most of the commonly asked questions and posed challenges to universal salvation.

In the "lists" section, you'll find lists of scriptures, lists of quotes from church fathers, etc.

Thanks, by the way, for all the nice things you've said!

Charlie

 

[Im_A]

I do believe in a form of annihilationism, yes, though perhaps I understand the concept a bit differently than others might. I do not believe in eternal torment, except to say that the torment that some people feel in the here and now is of the eternal quality - it never ends for them in this life. But certainly not the mythical hell some believe in.

Paxigoth refers to himself in third person when Paxigoth is in the hypomanic state of his bipolar disorder like he is right now.

I reconcile my faith with Biblical passages that appear to support universalism by understanding them as metaphors for the ride-reaching and accessible grace and acceptance and love that is available and God-given to all people here and now regardless of what people do with it. Furthermore, I interpret scripture in non supernaturalistic terms (but in supranaturalistic terms). I do not pick and choose passages, I pick all passages but I recognise a tension in interpretation and while I try to interpret contextually I also realise that no single person can interpret perfectly. The word of God isn't just infallible, the word of God is inerrant. Unfortunately, the "Bible" isn't the "word of God". Jesus is the word of God and the Bible is the place where Jesus is found. Ultimately the relevance of any passage (biblical, gnostic or modern) stands or falls on its relevance to Jesus. So no, I'm not particularly concerned about some parts of the OT.

For the record, my interpretive lens to all such areas is not liberalism (people here think it is). Actually, it is existentialism. Universalism is a good liberal myth but it makes no sense in reality.

i don't see why it has to make logical sense for reality. it is a belief about the afterlife. whatever happened to having a little mysticalness in our faith especially about a being you can't even see, feel or touch. and as i come into universalism, i am feeling some very fruitful, positive, productive changes, that i'm thankful for.

and i don't see how annilihiation makes any sense for reality. it's a belief about the afterlife, for surely we can see God hasn't gotten rid of all the "evil beings" in the world yet. and i don't enjoy the impression of a god that comes with annilihationism. (no, the impression isn't on the lines of some all powerful dictating smiting every wicked person away, it's not that at all.)

 

[spinningtutu]

Clarifications:

Both annihilationism and universalism need to be understood nonmythologically before trying to apply them to reality.

Anihilationism, as I understand it, means that someday evil will fall out of existence because all evil people will cease to exist and that is where evil is found. It isn't a belief about the afterlife - to me it is more of a philosophy of the lack of an afterlife (two very different things).

Universalism is a less harmful myth than some others, thats why I said that it was a good liberal myth. But what does it mean to this life, to this reality? I can fully identify with being comforted by moving from a "mean God" image to a "loving/forgiving God" image that usually takes place in accordance with moving from a focus on hellfire/damnation to universalism. But I have also witnessed that universalism eventually landslides almost into a fairytale way of thinking that doesn't take evil here and now seriously enough. And that is precisely the point where it can become a dangerous myth. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with Bishop Spong, a lot. But that doesn't mean there aren't disagreements. The biggest I have with him is his own universalism and that he doesn't take evil and sin seriously enough. Spong is a good example of why one should be wary of where universalism can lead.

Be thankful for the positive fruitful changes, but don't let it go too far.

'Mysticalness' in the faith is that it actually is possible for people to change and to follow Jesus after following all sorts of self destructive and other destructive paths. That is mystical and miraculous enough for me.

 

[Rev. Smith]

...was a good liberal myth. But what does it mean to this life, to this reality?

Your points were well taken, but why do you assume that any theological construction on the after-life must have "application" to this life? Much of science, art and theology are nothing more than speculation about the various states of the universe God made. We speculate about these things because we are curious, and thats ok - seems to be how we are wired.

Further, as many of the posts on this thread indicate, the nature of the afterlife and God's judgment of his creation does matter in this life. We must all discern the truth in God's revelation. If we believe St. Paul we are all made to seek God, but finding is left to us.

God, we are told, is just, merciful and loving. What he is going to do with us after we have died is one of the tests of the truth of that presentation.

If the protestants are right, and the "good" people will dwell in a happy place and the "bad" people are sent to be tortured then God is just, but the mercy and love parts seem lacking.

If God reedeems everyone eventually, then God is merciful and loving but a little shy on just.

If God rewards virtue and dissolves evil into nothingness then God is just, and loving but may be shy on mercy.

And so many of us keep seeking in scripture and the Holy Spirit for the truth. (Others just adopt one of the postulates (or a varient) and ignore the problem.

In the meantime may I suggest ; Love God, Love thy Neighbor, Keept the Commandments.

 

[Abiel]

Universalism is a less harmful myth than some others, thats why I said that it was a good liberal myth.

Before I start, I have to admit to not having a fully formed opinion/position on this doctrine/issue. But what I can say is this: If Universalism isn't true, and hell is a daily reality, it ceases to be 'less harmful' or 'good' in any sense, and actually becomes extremely evil and destructive in the extreme.

 

[Charlie V]

If God reedeems everyone eventually, then God is merciful and loving but a little shy on just.

I respectfully disagree.

Justice is punishment equal to a crime. God is merciful in that He often does not require that--many feel His Son's sacrifice bore the punishment for many.

If I tortured someone for twenty years, torturing me for twenty years and one day is unjust. The greatest punishment for which I am worthy is twenty years of punishment, although mercy may allow for less.

All our sins are finite, and therefore, punishment, at greatest, must be finite, in order for equal justice to take place, in the complete abscence of mercy, which would allow for kindness greater than equal justice.

Any punishment greater than the crime is not justice. It is cruelty.

Charlie

 

[ottaia]

Universalism is a less harmful myth than some others, thats why I said that it was a good liberal myth. But what does it mean to this life, to this reality?

But if we look at most behavior in life trying to prove that we have a purpose and a reason to be here (BIG assumption, I know), then Universalism helps us to STOP having to prove we are ok. We do not need the biggest car or the hottest babe (or dude as the case may be). We are already accepted and ok. If we could get beyond that, the eternal optimist in me would hope that we could then get down to the work of helping each other. It would loosen up a lot of money because I would not have to be throwing money around so people would think I was cool.

 

[Rev. Smith]

I respectfully disagree.

Justice is punishment equal to a crime. God is merciful in that He often does not require that--many feel His Son's sacrifice bore the punishment for many.

If I tortured someone for twenty years, torturing me for twenty years and one day is unjust. The greatest punishment for which I am worthy is twenty years of punishment, although mercy may allow for less.

All our sins are finite, and therefore, punishment, at greatest, must be finite, in order for equal justice to take place, in the complete abscence of mercy, which would allow for kindness greater than equal justice.

Any punishment greater than the crime is not justice. It is cruelty.

Charlie

Sorry, was counting angels on the head of a pin.

Conceptually I would agree with you, but I'm not sure that the temporal element is the true measure.

A man rapes a woman with violence. The entire awful ordeal takes about one hour. He is caught, tried and convicted to 20 years in prison. Is this unjust? He only abused his victim for an hour. Say we measure by all harm done. If the woman suffered ill effects in body and mind for then years, should his sentance be halved?

We use unequal measure not because we are unjust, but because there is no direct connection. The punishment fits the crime as best it can.

What are the conditions in sheol? hell? Would millions of years in either match the moments of pain, horror and agony suffered by a jewish mother in the gas chamber of Auschwitz, her baby huddled in her arms?

In fact, I've often thought that why the mideaval church fathers made up all those horror stories about hell was in the face of true evil our sense of justice demand torment for the damned.

What if the afterlife was nothing different then the Torah and Prophets suggest? Sheol is a place of waiting and calm. The rightieous and the sheep are called out of sheol to the right hand of God. The rest just are.

 

[Charlie V]

What are the conditions in sheol? hell? Would millions of years in either match the moments of pain, horror and agony suffered by a jewish mother in the gas chamber of Auschwitz, her baby huddled in her arms?

Millions of years, compared to an eternity, is barely a split second.

How long would it take for the mother to forgive, especially given that the perpitrator of the crime "knew not what he did"?

I think I missed the point however, and therefore didn't post the best post. I focussed on justice as equality, but the point of justice is not punishment or retribution. The words translated as "punishment" in their original language more aptly are translated as "correction."

The evil nature within us ceases to exist. The good nature within us remains. We are corrected.

The victims of Auschwitz, by the way, according to the doctrines of many Christians, would share hell with their tormentors, since they were largely Jewish people who had not accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior.

But here's a question I've posed that no one has yet responded..

The tormenter at Auschwitz did not live in a vacuum. Somewhere, he had a mother. That mother nursed him as an infant. That mother felt the joy of watching him take his first steps. She wiped his tears when he first scraped his knees on the playground.

Let us assume that that mother did all that is deemed necessary by a theology to achieve the kingdom, whether that be acceptance of Jesus, baptism, or whatever you prefer.

But she loves her son. She loves her child.

She spent her life saddened and tormented at how mislead her son had become, how he failed to understand his wrongdoing, how he eventually became a tormenter at Auschwitz. Mostly, she was saddened that her son was a lost sheep, a cruel man instead of the wonderful child she once knew, and she wanted more than anything, that he return to her, pure and innocent as he was when he was a child.

Should she now be tormented in heaven with the knowledge that her son will never again return to her arms?

As to the victims, I believe they can not only forgive, but that in heaven, they rejoice in doing so. The nature of heaven is forgiveness--forgiveness may even be a prerequisite to entering heaven. We ourselves--the victims themselves--cannot enter heaven until they forgive the wrong that was done against them.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Jesus urged us to forgive because, though we will all be saved (Christ is the "savior of the world," the "ransom for all, to be testified in due time") perhaps because of our failure to forgive, the tormentor at Auschwitz, when purified by the fire of His justice and redeemed by the spirit of Jesus, will preceed the victim into heaven, if the victim cannot forgive.

"Many of the last shall be first, and the first shall be last."

I am reminded of the parable of the workers in the vineyard. You say that universalism is short on justice. Didn't the workers who came early suggest that it was unjust, that those who came late recieved the same pay they did? Why should we begrudge God of His infinite mercy for all? Why should we call it unjust when He brings His salvation to all people?

Charlie

 

[ottaia]

A man rapes a woman with violence. The entire awful ordeal takes about one hour. He is caught, tried and convicted to 20 years in prison. Is this unjust? He only abused his victim for an hour. Say we measure by all harm done. If the woman suffered ill effects in body and mind for ten years, should his sentance be halved?

We use unequal measure not because we are unjust, but because there is no direct connection. The punishment fits the crime as best it can.

But in this situation, the punishment is used as a deterent and as a means of removing the person for harming others. In the afterlife, who is going to be harmed?

 

[Charlie V]

But in this situation, the punishment is used as a deterent and as a means of removing the person for harming others. In the afterlife, who is going to be harmed?

True, ottaia.

Moreover, it's a false comparison. We are not God. Our legal system cannot be compared to God's fulfillment of His will.

Charlie