What do you think of universalism? [Archive]

View Full Version : What do you think of universalism?

SillyGeezer10

April 29th 2005, 10:47 PM

lee_merrill

April 29th 2005, 11:23 PM

Hi SG, and welcome...

First, I should mention that this is (theoretically, in some cases) a theist-only posting area, though you probably haven't read all the fine print on every page! But just to let you know, in case a moderator comes along…

But as far as your question is concerned, I believe that people are only saved through faith in Christ, by knowing and obeying him, so no, I would say people do not go to heaven regardless of belief, in the sense that saving belief is not just believing facts (re James 2:19), but a commitment implying obedience.

Yet I also think that we are given reason in Scripture (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29179) to hope that all may indeed be saved!

Isaiah 45:23 "… to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance."

Blessings,
Lee

infide

April 30th 2005, 12:43 AM

Is it good or bust? Long time I used to be a universalist. Universalism means All people will go to Heaven REGARDLESS of belief.
The first known Univerisalist probably was Origen.
Is Universalism biblical?
BTW, I'm a atheist now and 15 years old now.

hey SG, and i also welcome you here.

Universalism, it seems, is not Biblical. I know many people wish it were, and i very much understand why someone would want to believe so.

starting in Daniel:
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace {and} everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:2, NAS).

Then the Lord:
"Then He will answer them, `Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matt 25:46, NAS).

These both state rather matter-of-factly that some people will either go to eternal punishment and everlasting contempt or eternal life.

The notion (form Origen) that God putting all His enemies under Christ's feet might imply universalism, i must say, is quite a stretch. This could simply mean a conquering victory over, not the loving drawing in salvation which is offered while it may be found.

but youre an atheist, so it shouldnt bother you much, does it?

but just so you know, salvation is still being freely offered to you. And God can forgive you for the wrongs youve done and the blood of Jesus, can cleanse you from all of them.

peace.

Hitch

April 30th 2005, 01:52 AM

Is it good or bust? Long time I used to be a universalist. Universalism means All people will go to Heaven REGARDLESS of belief.
The first known Univerisalist probably was Origen.
Is Universalism biblical?
BTW, I'm a atheist now and 15 years old now. It is not. Jesus is very specific saying 'I Am the Way and Truth and the Life."

The Scriptures as a whole are explicit in their teaching that men are fallen and apart from God through sin and only in the blood sacrifice of Christ is redemption possible.

Take care

Hitch

Calvinist4Him

April 30th 2005, 01:56 AM

Is it good or bust?

I firmly believe it to be a non-biblical unsound doctrine, a false idea, a false teaching.

Long time I used to be a universalist. Universalism means All people will go to Heaven REGARDLESS of belief.

Yeah I know, it sound good, even tickles the ears a little, but nullifies the cross, and by implication this life would be meaningless. I mean, if everyone is going to Heaven, what does it matter, why didn't God just give everyone the new body they will have in the first place and skip all the pain and suffering and misery that people go through here on planet earth?

The first known Univerisalist probably was Origen. Is Universalism biblical?

I'm no scholar of the early Church "fathers", and I'm not up to reading his writings to find out, so I'll have to take your word on that one. But to answer your question, no, it's not biblical. I could go into details, but seeing as your an atheist and all, I figure, why bother?

BTW, I'm a atheist now and 15 years old now.

You have a long ways to go kid (but so do I :tongue:), I wasn't much of a Christian when I was 15 years old, I was an atheist at heart. I mean, if you asked me if I believed in God, sure I believed in God, but not that it mattered, not that I had convictions and lived what I professed to believe. I find it really difficult to believe I was a Christian at the time, but perhaps I was a far backslidden Christian. At any rate, I tend to consider my conversion date at the age of 20. Nine years ago, and I know the difference, I know what a difference God made in my life, and continues to make in my life, even though the "newness" has long since worn off.

freelight

April 30th 2005, 02:37 AM

Is it good or bust? Long time I used to be a universalist. Universalism means All people will go to Heaven REGARDLESS of belief.
The first known Univerisalist probably was Origen.
Is Universalism biblical?
BTW, I'm a atheist now and 15 years old now.

I lean towards the logic and spiritual sense of Universalism....in the aspects of its implication meaning that all souls are included in the Love of God.....and that no soul can escape the omnipresence of God. It should be noted that there are varying perspectives within Universalism.

If we begin with the OMNI-ness of God in which all things/beings exist.....then heaven is at hand all-ready....as God is present NOW. One could speculate if belief has anything to do with DEITY Being the Sole Presence existing now...as Truth/Reality. God Being the Infinite Spirit here and now is heaven. Only theology would place God in its would-be drama of heaven being some future state or reward.

Scriptures do speak of the Restitution or Restoration of all things in Christ,...where/when God is All in All. Since God is Universal Love, Light, Power, Truth.......it is logical that his salvation is of universal proportions and includes the entirety of his creations. All comes from the One Light of Being...and returns to the ONE.....for in Truth....there is only ONE.

All beings have an ontological sense of divine presence and its universality....whether they know it consciously or not and will eventually awaken to the truth of their original being-ness which is centered in the ONE. DEITY includes all in its infinite embrace and consciousness.

paul

SillyGeezer10

April 30th 2005, 03:19 AM

Oops! Sorry for not reading it properly. This is the last time I post at this subforum. I'm only just getting used to this forum. Can anyone move this thread to a general discussion subforum, not debate, please?

Xavier

April 30th 2005, 03:25 AM

Per the request of the thread starter, I've moved this thread to General Theistics. Please respect the Thread Starters wishes in regards to topic and those he wishes to address.

lee_merrill

April 30th 2005, 04:38 PM

Well, the early church fathers did generally believe all could be saved, and some believed all would be saved, though again, through faith in Christ. Here is a sample, from an article by J.W. Hanson...

Blessings,
Lee

"Hippolytus (about A.D. 220) enumerates and comments on thirty-two heresies, but universal restoration is not named among them. And yet, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen--then living--were everywhere regarded as the great teachers of the church, and their view of man's future destiny was generally prevalent, according to Augustine, Jerome and others. It could not then have been regarded as a 'heresy' or Hippolytus would have named it."

"Epiphanius, 'the hammer of heretics,' describes eighty heresies, but he does not mention universal salvation, though Gregory of Nyssa, an outspoken Universalist, was, at the time he wrote, the most conspicuous figure in Christendom." (J.W. Hanson)

(1) Origen during his life-time was never opposed for his Universalism; (2) after his death Methodius, about A.D. 300, attacked his views of the resurrection, creation and pre-existence, but said not a word against his Universalism; (3) ten years later Pamphilus and Eusebius (A.D. 310) defended him against nine charges that had been brought against his views, but his Universalism was not among them; (4) in 330 Marcellus of Ancyra, a Universalist, opposed him for his views of the Trinity, and (5) Eustathius for his teachings concerning the Witch of Endor, but limited their arraignment to those items; (6) in 376 Epiphanius assailed his heresies, but he did not name Universalism as among them, and in 394 he condemned Origen's doctrine of the salvation of the Devil, but not of all mankind; (7) in 399 and 401, his views of Christ's death to save the Devil were attacked by Epiphanius, Jerome and Theophilus, and his advocacy of the subordination of Christ to God was condemned, but not his teachings of man's universal salvation; and (8) it was not till 544 and again in 553 that his enemies formulated attacks on that doctrine, and made a cat's-paw of a half-heathen Emperor, and even then, though the latter framed a canon for the synod, it was never adopted, and the council adjourned--owing, it must have been, to the Universalistic sentiment in it--without a word of condemnation of Origen's Universalism. With the exception of Augustine, the doctrine which had been constantly advocated, often by the most eminent, did not evoke a frown of opposition from any eminent scholar or saint.

"For all things are ordered both universally and in particular by the Lord of the universe, with a view to the salvation of the universe. But needful corrections, by the goodness of the great, overseeing judge, through the attendant angels, through various prior judgments, through the final judgment, compel even those who have become more callous to repent." "So he saves all; but some he converts by penalties, others who follow him of their own will, and in accordance with the worthiness of his honor, that every knee may be bent to him of celestial, terrestrial and infernal things (Phil. 2:10), that is angels, men, and souls who before his advent migrated from this mortal life." "For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord's people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually." "If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life." (Clement of Alexandria, )

"Christ captured over again the souls captured by the devil, for that he promised in saying, 'I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.'" On Ps. 68:18, "When, then, the whole creation shall meet the Son in the clouds, and shall be subject to him, then, too, shall the Son himself be subject to the Father, as being a faithful Apostle, and High Priest of all creation, that God may be all in all." (Athanasius, A.D. 296-373)

"If the subjection of the Son to the Father [1 Cor. 15:28] means union with him, then the subjection of all to the Son means union with him. Christ is to subject all things to himself. We ought to conceive of this as such a favorable subjection as that by which the Son will be subject to him who subjects all to him." "The Son breaking in pieces [Psalm 2] his enemies for the sake of remolding them as a potter his own work, as Jer. 18:6, is to restore them once more to their former state." (Eusebius)

"Let them, if they will, walk in our way and in Christ's. If not, let them walk in their own way. Perchance there they will be baptized with fire, with that last, that more laborious and longer baptism, which devours the substance like hay, and consumes the lightness of all evil." (Gregory of Nazianzus, 330-391 A.D.)

"Whoever considers the divine power will plainly perceive that it is able at length to restore by means of the eternal [aionion] purging and atoning sufferings, those who have gone even to this extremity of wickedness." "All evil, however, must at length be entirely removed from everything, so that it shall no more exist. For such being the nature of sin that it cannot exist without a corrupt motive, it must of course be perfectly dissolved, and wholly destroyed, so that nothing can remain a receptacle of it, when all motive and influence shall spring from God alone." "By which God shows that neither is sin from eternity nor will it last to eternity. Wickedness being thus destroyed, and its imprint being left in none, all shall be fashioned after Christ, and in all that one character shall shine, which originally was imprinted on our nature." "Sin, whose end is extinction, and a change to nothingness from evil to a state of blessedness." On Ps. 57:1: "Sin is like a plant on a house top, not rooted, not sown, not ploughed in the restoration to goodness of all things, it passes away and vanishes. So not even a trace of the evil which now abounds in us, shall remain." "The soul which is united to sin must be set in the fire, so that that which is unnatural and vile may be removed, consumed by the eternal [aionion] fire." "If it (the soul) remains the healing is accomplished in the life beyond." (Gregory of Nyssa)

"The Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, which perfected the Nicene Creed, was participated in by the two Gregorys; Gregory Nazianzen presided and Gregory Nyssen added the clauses to the Nicene creed that are in italics on a previous page in this volume. They were both Universalists. Would any council, in ancient or modern times, composed of believers in endless punishment, select an avowed Universalist to preside over its deliberations, and guide its 'doctrinal transactions?' And can anyone consistently think that Gregory's Universalism was unacceptable to the great council over which he presided?" (J.W. Hanson)

On Luke 15:4: "This one sheep is man, and by one man the entire race is to be understood; the ninety and nine are the heavenly angels and by us who are all one, the number of the heavenly church is to be filled up. And therefore it is that every creature awaits the revelation of the sons of God." (Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, d. A.D. 368)

"What then hinders our believing that he who is beaten small as the dust is not annihilated, but is changed for the better; so that, instead of an earthly man, he is made a spiritual man, and our believing that he who is destroyed, is so destroyed that all taint is removed, and there remains but what is pure and clean. And in God's saying of the adversaries of Jerusalem, 'They shall be as though they were not,' you are to understand they shall exist substantially, and as converted, but shall not exist as enemies. God gave death, not as a penalty, but as a remedy; death was given for a remedy as the end of evils." "How then, shall (all things) be subject to Christ? In this very way in which the Lord Himself said. "Take my yoke upon you,' for it is not the untamed who bear the yoke, but the humble and gentle, so that in Jesus's name every knee shall bend. Is this subjection of Christ not completed? Not at all. Because the subjection of Christ consists not in few, but in all. Christ will be subject to God in us by means of the obedience of all; when vices having been cast away, and sin reduced to submission, one spirit of all people, in one sentiment, shall with one accord begin to cleave to God, then God will be all in all, when all then shall have believed and done the will of God, Christ will be all and in all; and when Christ shall be all in all, God will be all in all." "So the Son of man came to save that which was lost, that is, all, for, 'As in Adam all died, so, too, in Christ shall all be made alive.'" (Ambrose of Milan, A.D. 340-398)

"The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of his grace. For he never would have said, 'until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,' unless we can be released from suffering after having suffered adequately for sin; nor would he have said, 'he shall be beaten with many stripes,' and again, 'he shall be beaten with few stripes,' unless the punishment to be endured for sin will have an end." (Theodore of Mopsuestia, 350-429 A.D.)

"Teaching that he would free from the power of death not only his own body, but at the same time the entire nature of the human race, he presently adds: 'And I, if I be lifted from the earth will draw all men unto me;' For I will not suffer what I have undertaken to raise the body only, but I will fully accomplish the resurrection to all men. He has paid the debt for us, and blotted out the handwriting that was against us, and having done these things, he quickened together with himself the entire nature of men." On 1 Cor. 15:28: "But in the future life corruption ceasing and immortality being present, the passions have no place, and these being removed, no kind of sin is committed. So from that time God is all in all, when all, freed from sin, and turned to him, shall have no inclination to evil." (Theodoret, A.D. 387-458)

"Augustine thought that the cleansing fire might burn away pardonable sins between death and the resurrection. He says: 'I do not refute it, because, perhaps, it is true;' and that the sins of the good may be eradicated by a similar process."

"He was certainly an example that might advantageously have been copied by opponents of Universalism in very recent years. Though he said the church 'detested' it, he kindly added: 'They who believe this, and yet are Catholics, seem to me to be deceived by a certain human tenderness,' and he urged Jerome to continue to translate Origen for the benefit of the African church!"

"Now, let the reader remember that for more than five hundred years, during which Universalism had prevailed, not a single treatise against it is known to have been written. And with the exception of Augustine, no opposition appears to have been aroused against it on the part of any eminent Christian writer. And not only so, but A.D. 381, at the first great Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, the intellectual leader was Gregory of Nyssa, who was only second to Origen as an advocate of universal restoration."

"There is no evidence whatever to show that it was not entirely allowable for five hundred years after Christ, to entertain the belief in universal salvation. Besides, the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, had, as an active member, Eusebius, Origen's apologist, a pronounced Universalist; the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, had as active members the two Gregories, Nazianzus and Nyssa, the latter as outspoken a Universalist as Origen himself; the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, declared that Gregory Nyssen's writings were the great bulwark against heresy. The fact that the doctrine was and had been for centuries prevalent, if not the prevailing sentiment, demonstrates that it must have been regarded as a Christian doctrine by the members of these great councils, or they would have come out against it."

"Justinian, a half-pagan emperor, who attempted to have Universalism officially condemned, lived in the most corrupt epoch of the Christian centuries. He closed the theological schools, and demanded the condemnation of Universalism by law; but the doctrine was so prevalent in the church that the council refused to obey his edict to suppress it." (J.W. Hanson)

"Who these sixteenth century [universalists] were we have not been careful to inquire; but certainly, from that time to this, there have never lacked those who in the interest of protecting God from the charge of 'partiality or respect of persons' have been inclined to hold that he has chosen all men to salvation and through his almighty grace brings them all to that blessed goal." (B.B. Warfield)

TrinityKicker

May 2nd 2005, 05:16 PM

Is it good or bust? Long time I used to be a universalist. Universalism means All people will go to Heaven REGARDLESS of belief.
The first known Univerisalist probably was Origen.
Is Universalism biblical?
BTW, I'm a atheist now and 15 years old now.No, universalism is obviously not Biblical. The Bible says that some people are going to hell.

Have you read the Bible before?

SillyGeezer10

May 3rd 2005, 12:44 AM

I've read it but I wanted your opinions. I like opinions a lot, which is why I posted the thread.

lee_merrill

May 3rd 2005, 12:44 PM

No, universalism is obviously not Biblical. The Bible says that some people are going to hell.
Well, there might be a possibility of repentance after death (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44123), after judgment, even...

Biblically!

Blessings,
Lee

TrinityKicker

May 3rd 2005, 01:27 PM

Well, there might be a possibility of repentance after death (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44123), after judgment, even...

Biblically!

Blessings,
LeeLee, I think you are grasping at straws in that thread, but even so, it doesn't discount that some people will experience the second death and some people will blastpheme the Holy Spirit. There is no comming back from either of those, so universalism is not biblical.

shunyadragon

May 24th 2005, 10:54 AM

judge

May 31st 2005, 01:23 AM

Fizban

May 31st 2005, 06:12 PM

Is it good or bust?

Definitely bust.

Is Universalism biblical?

If you take several verses out of context or pick-and-choose your scripture. In other words, no, it isn't biblical. People have tried to make a case for it biblicallly, but most of the time it relies less on scripture, and more on emotional arguments. If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Everyone by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland is one such book that does this. The authors basically use whatever scripture they can to support their own view. Its somewhat comical though if you read their verses in context, though, as many times the "Universalist Scripture" is contradicted two verses later! It gets quite interesting by the end of the book.

Another book that proposes a Christian Universalist view is The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott. I haven't read that one yet, but I plan on it. From all I've heard, it takes a more philosophical approach to Universalism, and on the whole is better written than the other book. William Lane Craig has a rebuttal to Dr. Talbott's views here. (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/talbott1.html)

Well, the early church fathers did generally believe all could be saved, and some believed all would be saved, though again, through faith in Christ.

While I do hold the church fathers in respect, it is irrelevant that they believed in Universal Salvation through Christ. If there is to be a case made for Christian Universalism, it must be made through the mouthes of the apostles or Christ himself, and judging from the scripture we have from the Apostles and Christ (not even counting the OT!), it is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of universalism with what is taught in the Bible.

It depends what heaven is. No one really knows. If there is one or more spiritual realms after this one, than this is simple the jumping off point or we may be just passing through.

Unfortunately within the Christian worldview, this is irrelevant. We're given evidence within scripture of passing on to one more realm afterwards (if indeed heaven is a place) but as to there being more realms afterwards, we need to follow the data given us in the Bible instead of speculating endlessly. Otherwise we still might find that pink unicorn...

The other Christian posters give you their highly judgemental worldview, based on a Biblical God who would not be likely judged a good father in today's modern society.

It isn't judgmental to disagree with someone. Besides, your calling my worldview "highly judgmental" is nothing more than you passing a judgment on it. Shall we flip the table around and call your worldview "highly judgmental"? Or can we agree that to disagree is ok, and that in the end we can't all be right?

Secondly, I personally am not concerned with how "modern society" would judge God, as they seem to have gotten any number of things wrong. Care to express why God isn't a "good father"? We'd probably need to start a new thread, though.

BTW, I'm a atheist now and 15 years old now

Just out of curiosity then, why the questions about universalism? Just seeking to broaden your knowledge?

I've read it but I wanted your opinions. I like opinions a lot, which is why I posted the thread.

That's good. Keep an open-mind...just not so open that your brains fall out:wink:.

Take care

Duder

June 1st 2005, 05:00 AM

Universalism is the last best hope for the Christian religion.

If you combine God's omniscience and God's infinite justice, there can be no place for any everlasting torture chambers. The logic is so obvious I think it hardly needs to be reviewed.

Unless Christianity is soon to become a quaint relic and no more, in the not-too-distant future theologians will argue for hell about as often as theologians today insist on YEC.

Some Christians cling to hell because it's nice to be able to tell your enemies that they'll get theirs in the end. Other Chritians cling to hell because they cannot feel saved unless they can point to a class of people who are damned.

A few Christians retain a place for hell in their theology because they find it in the Bible, and for no other reason. They would rather there were no hell, but their take on scriptural inerrancy forces it upon them. The only answer I can give to them is . . .. . . the bible is sometimes wrong.
Why should we believe that 2000 to 4000 year old literature is the very best possible wisdom on the subject of God and His ways? No - the Bible is a record of ancient men giving us their best thoughts on God and His ways. But taking ancient literature as the last word on God is like trying to learn science by reading Aristotle.

I do read Aristotle sometimes. I sometimes find there an eloquent turn of phrase and a profound insight. I also find many areas where what he took to be absolutely true has turned out to be wildly inaccurate. Great men make great mistakes. So it is with the authors of the Bible. Hell is a great mistake.

TrinityKicker

June 1st 2005, 06:04 PM

Unless Christianity is soon to become a quaint relic and no more, in the not-too-distant future theologians will argue for hell about as often as theologians today insist on YEC.Duder, it sounds like you agree that universalism is not biblical. That's good. What I have a problem with is the idea that christianity must change to survive.

Christianity without its' central tenets is not christianity. Christianity must not change.

Duder

June 1st 2005, 07:07 PM

Duder, it sounds like you agree that universalism is not biblical. That's good. What I have a problem with is the idea that christianity must change to survive.

Christianity without its' central tenets is not christianity. Christianity must not change.

Your assumption is that Christianity is given by God to man. I disagree, I think Christianity is given by man to God. And if Christianity cannot evolve with man, then it becomes a fossil of little use to either man or God.

Fizban

June 2nd 2005, 02:27 AM

If you combine God's omniscience and God's infinite justice, there can be no place for any everlasting torture chambers. The logic is so obvious I think it hardly needs to be reviewed.

1. It has never been "everlasting torture chambers". It has always been stripe for stripe, you reap what you sow.

2. Some people have revised hell in light of Honor and Shame, pivotal Mediterranean values. Rather than "fire and brimstone" torture, it is more dishonor for the dishonor you caused through your actions.

3. How just of it for God to force those who willfully snubbed him into a relationship with Him?

A few Christians retain a place for hell in their theology because they find it in the Bible, and for no other reason. They would rather there were no hell, but their take on scriptural inerrancy forces it upon them.

Well, the Bible is the standard for Christianity, so it should be the basis we have for forming our theology. Otherwise, it isn't Christianity, merely some philosophy. Secondly, hell is about justice. Not malicious vengeance, but justice. I could have little faith in a God that easily forgave someone as Hitler who committed such atrocities in life and then didn't accept the payment for his sins. The latter part is the pivotal point.

The only answer I can give to them is...the Bible is sometimes wrong.

:hrm:
Proof please.

Why should we believe that 2000 to 4000 year old literature is the very best possible wisdom on the subject of God and His ways?

Mayhap there be a process of divine revelation.

Your assumption is that Christianity is given by God to man. I disagree, I think Christianity is given by man to God.

It is a belief I share with TrinityKicker I'm sure, but you assume just as well that Christianity is given by man to God. Again, I would ask for the proof of this.

And another thing, you are also assuming that your view is more correct than those who wrote the Bible without any form of standard to judge by. The only standard we have for Christianity is the Bible, which I believe to be received via divine revelation and inerrant. However, even if it isn't inerrant there are tons of biblical scholars who do not hold to inerrancy yet still find it on the whole remarkably accurate and see no reason to remove the doctrine of hell from it.