Universalists: How do you explain the "problem passages"?

[throughfiierytrial]

I think that the weakest case for those who claim true Christianity insists on eternal punishment is that the Nicene Creed fails to address the subject, one way or the other.

Problem with this kind of response as I see it is it fails to address the BIBLE teachings on hell. The Nicene Creed is not on par with the Holy Bible, rather it interprets certain Truths of the Bible...why rely on what it says or doesn't say about a doctrine which as you say is untouched?

 

[RickReads]

Problem with this kind of response as I see it is it fails to address the BIBLE teachings on hell. The Nicene Creed is not on par with the Holy Bible, rather it interprets certain Truths of the Bible...why rely on what it says or doesn't say about a doctrine which as you say is untouched?

The Nicene Creed tells us a lot about what many early Chrisitans believed. I think it`s a good point.

 

[hedrick]

The Nicene Creed tells us a lot about what many early Chrisitans believed. I think it`s a good point.

The Nicene Creed was intended to deal with a specific problem. However I agree that they embedded the solution in a general summary of the faith. There were enough universalists who were considered orthodox that you wouldn't expect it to condemn universalism. But I'm not sure how significant the omission is, since clearly the creed didn't intend to take a position on every theological controversy.

 

[RickReads]

The Nicene Creed was intended to deal with a specific problem. However I agree that they embedded the solution in a general summary of the faith. There were enough universalists who were considered orthodox that you wouldn't expect it to condemn universalism. But I'm not sure how significant the omission is, since clearly the creed didn't intend to take a position on every theological controversy.

That is why I only rated his post as a useful.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

How do you feel about the Christian apologists and writers who interpret that third and forth generations comment to be in reference to the 3 generations of men Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 3 generations who could take on and sometimes learn to emulate their fathers sinful behaviours.

For example, Isaac uses the same kind of deception regarding his wife that his father used (e.g. “tell people you’re my sister so that it might go well with me.”) Jacob had his obvious issues too.

Point being they wouldn’t interpret that section of scripture as being a curse upon 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations (e.g. “punishing the children” for their fathers sin.)

Punishing the children of generation 3 because generation 1 hated Him seems strange in the extreme, but it’s believable that an alcoholic father produces alcoholic sons, so the generations proceeding him are punished.

There’s God’s punishment in there, but it’s more like a knock on effect, sin culture in the home that infects and brings ruin to the children in a similar way as the previous generation.

There’s lots of scripture that says God doesn’t punish any son for his fathers crimes (or vice versa.) There’s an entire chapter where God condemns that sort of thinking (Ezekiel 18,) in that section God denounces the phrase “The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”



If my thoughts add fuel to the fire it’s okay to ignore them, it can just be seen as further context.

God was speaking of the generations of ALL mankind under the OT LAW and this statement was issued after the LAW was pronounced...warnings of the gravity of sin in other words. Romans 6:23 summarizes this way: 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Look at the following passages which illustrate the change in covenant with His people (O.T. Law to N.T. Law):
29 “In those days people will no longer say,

‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.

31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

35 This is what the Lord says,

he who appoints the sun
to shine by day,
who decrees the moon and stars
to shine by night,
who stirs up the sea
so that its waves roar—
the Lord Almighty is his name:
36 “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
declares the Lord,
“will Israel ever cease
being a nation before me.”

37 This is what the Lord says:

“Only if the heavens above can be measured
and the foundations of the earth below be searched out
will I reject all the descendants of Israel
because of all they have done,”
declares the Lord

 

[throughfiierytrial]

The Nicene Creed tells us a lot about what many early Chrisitans believed. I think it`s a good point.

I recite the Nicene Creed often in Church...I AM familiar...it is not the Bible however, nor is it on par with the Holy Bible which does speak of hell and damnation which we are discussing here.

 

[Cormack]

The next oldest creed, the first declaration authorized by a consensus of the whole church, was the Nicene, A.D. 325; completed in 381 at Constantinople. Its sole reference to the future world is in these words: "I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world (æon) to come." It does not contain a syllable referring to endless punishment, though the doctrine was then professed by a portion of the church, and was insisted upon by some, though it was not generally enough held to be stated as the average belief.​

So dominant was the influence of the Greek fathers, who had learned Christianity in their native tongue, in the language in which it was announced, and so little had Tertullian's cruel ideas prevailed, that it was not even attempted to make the horrid sentiment a part of the creed of the church.​

Moreover, Gregory Nazianzen presided over the council in Constantinople, in which the Nicean creed was finally shaped--the Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed--and as he was a Universalist, and as the clause, "I believe in the life of the world to come," was added by Gregory of Nyssa, an "unflinching advocate of extreme Universalism, and the very flower of orthodoxy," it must be apparent that the consensus of Christian sentiment was not yet anti-Universalistic.
​

Bolding my own, this section was especially relevant to the current topic of conversation. It’s useful for the “everlasting” or “eternal punishment” problem passages too, maybe providing some useful insight into how the church understood certain phrases.

To me the early creeds highlight what exactly Christians considered worth quarrelling over (especially since universalism was already about at this point in time and easily addressed if troublesome,) amidst Christians dividing over either one’s understanding of hell or universalism didn’t seem to make the list of worthy causes for a very long time.

^^^^ quote from “Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine” by J. W. Hanson.

 

[RickReads]

I recite the Nicene Creed often in Church...I AM familiar...it is not the Bible however, nor is it on par with the Holy Bible which does speak of hell and damnation which we are discussing here.

I feel like this is taking us off topic. Let`s move on. You win.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Having been taught the traditional understanding of hell for a long time, then finding for myself that there are a lot of holes in that narrative, I’m happy with the label “hopeful universalist,“ God appears to be a “hopeful universalist” Himself (e.g. “Do I take pleasure in the death of the wicked?” “Not willing that any should perish.”)

Ezekiel 18:23:
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
II Peter 3:9:
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

We see from this passage that God patiently waits for each to repent...do all repent? do all seek God? It is not for lack of God's love nor patience that sinners die the death.
We all want to be merciful and should be toward all...mercy triumphs over judgement Scripture states. But we do a disservice to the unbeliever if we do not warn. If the salt looses its saltiness it is good for nothing...

 

[throughfiierytrial]

The next oldest creed, the first declaration authorized by a consensus of the whole church, was the Nicene, A.D. 325; completed in 381 at Constantinople. Its sole reference to the future world is in these words: "I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world (æon) to come." It does not contain a syllable referring to endless punishment, though the doctrine was then professed by a portion of the church, and was insisted upon by some, though it was not generally enough held to be stated as the average belief.​

So dominant was the influence of the Greek fathers, who had learned Christianity in their native tongue, in the language in which it was announced, and so little had Tertullian's cruel ideas prevailed, that it was not even attempted to make the horrid sentiment a part of the creed of the church.​

Moreover, Gregory Nazianzen presided over the council in Constantinople, in which the Nicean creed was finally shaped--the Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed--and as he was a Universalist, and as the clause, "I believe in the life of the world to come," was added by Gregory of Nyssa, an "unflinching advocate of extreme Universalism, and the very flower of orthodoxy," it must be apparent that the consensus of Christian sentiment was not yet anti-Universalistic.
​

Bolding my own, this section was especially relevant to the current topic of conversation. It’s useful for the “everlasting” or “eternal punishment” problem passages too, maybe providing some useful insight into how the church understood certain phrases.

To me the early creeds highlight what exactly Christians considered worth quarrelling over (especially since universalism was already about at this point in time and easily addressed if troublesome,) amidst Christians dividing over either one’s understanding of hell or universalism didn’t seem to make the list of worthy causes for a very long time.

^^^^ quote from “Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine” by J. W. Hanson.

Where does average person's belief fit in exactly with God and His Word? That is what needs to be addressed in my view.

 

[Cormack]

We all want to be merciful and should be toward all...mercy triumphs over judgement Scripture states. But we do a disservice to the unbeliever if we do not warn. If the salt looses its saltiness it is good for nothing...

Good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot, so we teach, preach, love one another, encourage and share the gospel of Jesus Christ. I surely believe that Gods mercy will prevail over His justice, both will be done right by His wisdom nonetheless.

Where does average person's belief fit in exactly with God and His Word? That is what needs to be addressed in my view.

Still belonging to the Christian community is a large part of my thinking here, I wouldn’t want us all to be a church unto ourselves, it feels too much like solipsism.

If the earliest Christians had ample opportunity to denounce the universalist camp but wouldn’t, instead inviting them to a seat at the table to help defend and explain their shared faith, that tells us a lot.

Still Ricks correct on this one, our interests are outpacing the topics purpose. If you feel there’s anything more to add I’d enjoy reading, but for now this topic is about verses the universalists find difficult to explain.

God bless buddy.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Awe, I went unaddressed because of fantasy delusions. Post #46

 

[RickReads]

Awe, I went unaddressed because of fantasy delusions. Post #46

Can you repeat the fantasy delusions?

 

[mlepfitjw]

Can you repeat the fantasy delusions?

Yes, Rick!

I believe that in the end people who are wicked will be outside of the gates of the heavenly Jerusalem. Believers will be in heavenly Jerusalem with God, and the Lord God Almighty.

Sometimes punishment can pertain to our choices in our life. There are many choices and paths and roads to take in the life and there are so many people, some who been restored by God and some still unsure and still searching for truth in life, some who dont care living in their own wants and desires.

We can cause death to our spirit as believers by grieving it, when we end up doing something that starts to lay on us that we should try to reconcile.

There is a song that says there is no rest for the wicked and money doesn’t grow on trees though in time we all pass away and our deeds we have done are final with our last breathe.

Then we return to God in whatever spiritual body he gives to all as all are resurrected though as I explained earlier those who did not want nothing to do with God are on the outside of the heavenly Jerusalem.

I don’t believe in universalism because their is only one way that is through Christ Jesus, and of course he can even reach those who don’t know that exact name.


I was gonna add more to this but i think this is my clear defintion of the afterlife, and the gates of the heavenly city never close, which allows for the ability for God to get his will, for all to come to the knowledge of the truth even after DEATH itself.

Look at the book of Jonah, for more details about second chances anyway that is all and thank you @RickReads

Jonah hated the fact God saved them, even after all of their wicked ways... He hated, that fact.

I am open about universalism, I just don't know how you guys get past some verses. If you have an explanation for them I will hear you out. For example, all of the verses that say the wicked will perish, everlasting destruction, the second death, etc.? How do you explain those verses about perishing and the wicked getting destroyed?

I just believe that God is the savior of all people and his will/desire is to have all come to the knowledge of the truth. '

1 Timothy 4:10 This is why we work hard and continue to struggle, for our hope is in the living God, who is the Savior of all people and particularly of all believers.


Looking at scriptures from my eyes even though it feeds my spirit by increasing faith in the Good things of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, I believe all the new testament is done and completed.

No more waiting on the Lord Jesus Christ to come an rescue you when you already have his spirit inside of you by your faith and belief!

God bless friends.

Thanks for any prayers sent up for my family, and my sufferings over here! MAy you all be blessed in the things you are going through and overcome through the strength we get from our Lord.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Nicene Creed was intended to deal with a specific problem. However I agree that they embedded the solution in a general summary of the faith. There were enough universalists who were considered orthodox that you wouldn't expect it to condemn universalism. But I'm not sure how significant the omission is, since clearly the creed didn't intend to take a position on every theological controversy.

The lack of mention in the Nicene Creed isn't much of an issue, since as you note it was dealing with specific issues.

I do think that a general lack of statement in the creedal language of the Church demonstrates that this isn't an issue that had yet necessitated a formal definition.

I think the closest we really get to something like that is with one of the Justinian anathemas against Origen that are often associated with the 5th ecumenical council.

"If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema." - Emperor Justinian's Anathemas against Origen, 9

However it's also been my understanding that there has been a lot of doubt about the canonical status of the anti-Origenist anathemas.

And there is a lot that probably needs to be unpacked generally when discussing the complex relationship between Origen and some later churchmen. Given that there is very generally the sentiment today that Origen was himself unfairly condemned posthumously; and what is to be condemned isn't Origen, but rather later what we might call hyper-Origenists.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mlepfitjw]

The lack of mention in the Nicene Creed isn't much of an issue, since as you note it was dealing with specific issues.

I do think that a general lack of statement in the creedal language of the Church demonstrates that this isn't an issue that had yet necessitated a formal definition.

I think the closest we really get to something like that is with one of the Justinian anathemas against Origen that are often associated with the 5th ecumenical council.

"If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema." - Emperor Justinian's Anathemas against Origen, 9

However it's also been my understanding that there has been a lot of doubt about the canonical status of the anti-Origenist anathemas.

And there is a lot that probably needs to be unpacked generally when discussing the complex relationship between Origen and some later churchmen. Given that there is very generally the sentiment today that Origen was himself unfairly condemned posthumously; and what is to be condemned isn't Origen, but rather later what we might call hyper-Origenists.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm glad that no one when it comes to Christianity has any authority what so ever when it comes down to what they will use to justify statements for like the quote you posted from Justinians.

No one has authority what so ever over a persons faith, and that has to be one of the greatest things about the freedom that God gives.

Though it would be probable that people believe they have some type of authority to say who is right and who is wrong when comes down to how a person must act, and must believe and follow those who could doctrinally demanding and misusing the bible for truthful edification of Love God, and Love Others, regardless of how they may believe.

 

[RickReads]

Yes, Rick!

I believe that in the end people who are wicked will be outside of the gates of the heavenly Jerusalem. Believers will be in heavenly Jerusalem with God, and the Lord God Almighty.

Sometimes punishment can pertain to our choices in our life. There are many choices and paths and roads to take in the life and there are so many people, some who been restored by God and some still unsure and still searching for truth in life, some who dont care living in their own wants and desires.

We can cause death to our spirit as believers by grieving it, when we end up doing something that starts to lay on us that we should try to reconcile.

There is a song that says there is no rest for the wicked and money doesn’t grow on trees though in time we all pass away and our deeds we have done are final with our last breathe.

Then we return to God in whatever spiritual body he gives to all as all are resurrected though as I explained earlier those who did not want nothing to do with God are on the outside of the heavenly Jerusalem.

I don’t believe in universalism because their is only one way that is through Christ Jesus, and of course he can even reach those who don’t know that exact name.


I was gonna add more to this but i think this is my clear defintion of the afterlife, and the gates of the heavenly city never close, which allows for the ability for God to get his will, for all to come to the knowledge of the truth even after DEATH itself.

Look at the book of Jonah, for more details about second chances anyway that is all and thank you @RickReads

Jonah hated the fact God saved them, even after all of their wicked ways... He hated, that fact.





I just believe that God is the savior of all people and his will/desire is to have all come to the knowledge of the truth. '

1 Timothy 4:10 This is why we work hard and continue to struggle, for our hope is in the living God, who is the Savior of all people and particularly of all believers.


Looking at scriptures from my eyes even though it feeds my spirit by increasing faith in the Good things of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, I believe all the new testament is done and completed.

No more waiting on the Lord Jesus Christ to come an rescue you when you already have his spirit inside of you by your faith and belief!

God bless friends.

Thanks for any prayers sent up for my family, and my sufferings over here! MAy you all be blessed in the things you are going through and overcome through the strength we get from our Lord.

You think about things a little differently then most, I probably do as well but I think I can agree with all that except for one thing.

I don`t think Universalism is trying to promote an alternative to Jesus. I must say that I don`t understand Universalism very well but the main premise seems to be that the King James crowd translated some words incorrectly and that our view of hell is based on thinking from the dark ages.

If that is true we could be getting things very wrong. Does God intend to torture ignorant creatures who only lived a short time for all eternity? I`m unsure about that.

 

[Natto]

I don't know if I am universalism, since what I believe is through my observation of daily living,reading social media , and watching news report and over years of life. But such observation has its limitation, it would be limited to scope and stuff I read, see, expose and stuff I experience, and experience I have accumulated until now. Those information could be integrated with my personal bias, ignorance, and preference to form certain positions, which I am in favor of. I do not believe faithfully in anything which is written in bible and be considered as"believing in all of bible " if problematic verses strongly violated my logic, common sense, and reasonableness. But I never rejected idea of super-powerful being , that is I never " rejection existence of God",

If the biblical Scripture written said that all wicked would perish, which does not make any senses to you. How about revising to "majority of wicked get perished ", then it make much more sense to you and let you have smoother reading session of bible,. . ,..Then just slightly modified and fixed it, it's not a big deal. There are some verses, even saying people live more than "hundred years old" You don't really need to buy in everything that is contradictory to common senses , which lead to more confusion or breakdown. As long as one believe there is a God and God love you. That's themes of bible. The rest of it is just shown in concrete and specific way or examples how God loves you. Existence of God and he love you. That's enough. That's the most fundamental root of it. Little and minor fix here and there shall be ok.

In some unknown and exotic places,territory , law makers continuously create new laws to control , regulate ,serve society as a whole. But outdated , problematic law or statute just constantly are scrutinized to be abolished , modified ,updated, by some insightful judicial scholars and responsible law makers to keep normal and optimal functionality of statues and serve people better in this era. Most importantly, after it being fixed, statutes are becoming more reasonably correct to most of people and society. Furthermore, it MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE.

 

[mlepfitjw]

You think about things a little differently then most, I probably do as well but I think I can agree with all that except for one thing.

I don`t think Universalism is trying to promote an alternative to Jesus. I must say that I don`t understand Universalism very well but the main premise seems to be that the King James crowd translated some words incorrectly and that our view of hell is based on thinking from the dark ages.

If that is true we could be getting things very wrong. Does God intend to torture ignorant creatures who only lived a short time for all eternity? I`m unsure about that.

I agree with you, about Universalism isnt trying to promote an alternative Jesus. My teacher who explained to me in the other post I mentioned the different ways to see the end. Was that Universalism means basically, all ways lead to God. Though there is only one way, and that is through the Lord Jesus Christ.

God is the savior of all people, even more so to the believers cause they are given the spirit by faith, even if they haven't yet hear the gospel in its full context, because of God being able to reach people in the most impossible ways.

So God reaching people after death too, ah what a relief, and it makes seeing God more bearable than having all people who didnt believe just be thrown away like utter trash regardless of the things they had done. They can live outside the city gate, and I wonder sometimes if those in the city can come outside the city gate to lost, so we aren't just standing around bored.

I don't know if I am universalism, since all I believe through my life observation , observing from social media observation, news report and over decades of daily life. But my observation has its limitation, limited to stuff I read, observe, see and accumulated experience until now. and I do have personal bias, ignorance, and preference , in favor of certain positions.. I do not believe faithfully in whatever written in bible as"true bible believer" if those verses strongly violated my common sense. But I am not a " rejection of God", but I do believe the ideas there is a being somewhere out there, a omni-potent being, God.

If all wicked will perished, if it's not making any senses to you. Changing it to "majority of wicked get perished ", then it make much more sense to you,..Then just modified and fixed it, it's not a big deal. There are some verses, even saying people live "hundred of years old" You don't really need to buy in everything which lead to contradiction and confusion to common senses. As long as one believe there is a God and God love you. That's enough. That's the most fundamental and root of it. It's alright to has some little fix of here and there.

In some unknown countries, problematic law or statute just constantly abolished ,omitted , modified , fixed ,updated by some responsible scholars and law makers to keep functionality of statues and serve different era of people better. Most importantly, after being fixed, it is more reasonable to majority of people and it MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE.

Thank you for sharing. As long as one believe there is a God, and God loves you that is enough. God does write on the heart and minds of seekers seeking the truth, and those looking will find that truth.

 

[hedrick]

I don`t think Universalism is trying to promote an alternative to Jesus. I must say that I don`t understand Universalism very well but the main premise seems to be that the King James crowd translated some words incorrectly and that our view of hell is based on thinking from the dark ages.

Universalism certainly is not trying to replace Jesus. But it envisions a different role for him. The typical evangelical view is that everyone is naturally damned. Jesus provides an opportunity for a few (estimates of 10% still seem to be common) to be saved.

Universalism sees Jesus' role as reversing the Fall, bringing in new heavens and earth. This tends to be a cosmic vision, compared with an individual emphasis in evangelicalism (and much of Western Christianity).

The problem with universalism, from a traditional point of view, isn't that it makes Christ unnecessary. Clearly it gives him a critical role. Rather, it's that it makes Christ less important for individuals. Of course universalists who try to maintain a Biblical perspective think we'll be held accountable for how we respond to Christ, but if some people aren't damned, that accountability seems less serious. That advantage, however, is that accountability is plausible. If 1 Cor 3:12 describes how it works, then we can imagine varying degrees of sanction, to match varying human behavior. For what it's worth, Jesus seems pretty clearly to speak of greater and lesser rewards and punishments.

The biggest problem with the traditional (Western) view, in my view, is that when the major sanction is going to heaven and hell, it's hard to make accountability real for Christians. Catholics dealt with this by purgatory. But Protestants have rejected that. Unfortunately there's no obvious replacement. Hence most Protestant postings on CF use what is basically the same soteriology as 16th Cent Catholicism: We are justified by faith as long as we haven't committed mortal sin (in practice, pretty much just homosexuality) without repenting of it. But without purgatory that still requires one to draw a bright line across human behavior that is full of grays.

I've watched discussions on soteriology here for a long time. No one that I can see has a plausible way to handle the whole spectrum of human life when they're operating on the basis of traditional soteriology. If you ask who is saved and who isn't, and how you know if you're saved, the answers are like mud. Universalism allows varying degrees of reward and punishment, without requiring us to define the bright line. But it requires us to believe in a God who doesn't think rejecting him is worthy of infinite punishment.