Christian Universalism

If you stick to the seven “isn’ts” that Parry puts out, I don’t see how.

I don’t think you’re talking about Christian universalism.

They believe that after death they will be judged and then tormented in proportion to the evil they’ve done? That strikes me as not being very common. The only time I’ve run into it was with some native Americans who mixed bits of Christianity into their devotion to “the Great Spirit” – they believed that after death they would live in agony from recognizing all they’d done to harm others, animals, and the environment, and the agony would last a long time – much longer than it had taken for them to contemplate and then do wrong – until they were cleansed enough to go onward.

2 Likes

As mentioned there are different forms of universalism. The form of universalism I am more convinced of than the others is one without a purgatory like state of suffering. It is one where you can live however you want and still get saved. I think there will be a process but I don’t think that process involves torture. Many argue that well then this must mean it does not matter how you live but the reality is that most of the world believes in eternal conscious torment where a person is suffering in torment for billions and billions of years with no hope and they still bear tons of fruit of evil. Even in this group at times , I felt that some were attempting to weaponize various things about my childhood against me. People struggle with sin. Does not matter your religious belief or lack of. Christ himself faced the same struggles we did and prevailed.

There are two things that comes to peoples minds with universalism. One is the previously mentioned “‘then without a literal hell it means we can all just live as evil as we want with no consequences “. This side seems to me to undermine the gift of love. There is still consequences of our sins such as creating suffering in others and in our lives. If you care about humanity then that’s an issue. It’s why I don’t eat burgers. I don’t want to cause a sentient living being to suffer and be killed at 1/10th their lifespan just so I can taste them.

The other side is trust in God. Knowing no bad we mess up, he is there. His love is unconditional. When I see how much he loves us it helps me love others.

An example I used before is this.

There is a man who is with a woman and he loves. He says he loves her with all his heart. But if she fails to do what he says by to much, or just don’t want to be with him, he keeps her alive forever and ever and she’s always being lit on fire. Most of us would recognize that’s not very loving. It’s like saying you love your pet pig as you fatten them up to take them to slaughter. Or you love your dog but you’re going to kill them as a puppy and use their flesh for fish bait. Just actions and words don’t align. ( eternal conscious torment )

There is another man who says he loves his woman also. It’s unconditional. He tells her just trust the plan I laid out and don’t go out that door. If you do, don’t go off the stairs and definitely don’t ever walk down the street. He says to her because he is trying to protect her. But she still ignores it and one day runs out the door, downstairs and down the road and she’s captured by a monster and it eats her and she’s dead. She’s just gone forever. ( conditional immortality)

There is also another man who says he loves his wife unconditionally as well. He gives her the same warning. But she also runs outside and down the stairs. She runs out into the road and sees the monster coming towards her. She feels hopeless. But suddenly the man is there as he takes all the bites and claws marks of the monster and protects his wife as he leads her back up the stairs and through inside.(universalism)

I mostly lean towards CI. But I think U has some good footing to stand on. Often, even in here, people read echo chambers. Myself included. He tend to read things that we think will further confirm our beliefs. If you believe in eternal conscious torment it’s helpful to read books on conditional immortality and universalism. If you believe in universalism, it’s beneficial to read books on the various forms of universalism.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

  • Since when does any human behavior in this world not have consequences. Just because none of us has a "God’s eye view of the consequences of anything we say and do or fail to say and do when we could said or done something doesn’t mean we get off “scott free”, in this world and the next.
  • If you knew, in this world or in the next, you would get to watch a video of your life, with someone standing by your side, drawing your attention to the dots and the connections between the dots, with no chance of undoing what you said or did or saying and doing what you could have or should have, what “purgatory” or hell could be worse?
  • Any philosophy or theory of universalism that says there are no consequences may be Dawkins’, Hitchens,’ or Harris’s atheism, but it certainly ain’t any Christian universalism that I can swallow.
  • “Scott free universalism” is never having to see the consequences of what we do or fail to do and never having to say we’re sorry, … i.e. repent.
1 Like

(Thanks, Phil.)

After the thread locked, I tripped over an old piece by Mike Heiser relevant to it that I’d like to point to. I’d also like to remind of the skeptical theism idea.

A couple of pertinent points:

I actually think it is easier to defend annihilationism than universal salvation…

I believe in free will. To be imagers of God, freedom is necessary since it is a communicable attribute. One cannot image God and not have true free will. Therefore, to remove it as the author discusses at certain points is, to me, impossible in that it would mean a reversal of God’s own decreed choice to make humans as his imagers.

I question whether God needs to be omnibenevolent for him to be perfect. I think God’s attributes are self-defined by him. If he chooses to not save everyone, I can’t call him imperfect. Parry’s view seems to suggest that God cannot be perfect and allow anyone to be lost. That seems to be a human-centered view. But we’re humans, so that’s kind of understandable — and so his view is appealing–but I’m not convinced it’s correct.

That last ties in well with the idea of skeptical theism, that maybe it is presumptuous of us to prescribe some of God’s attributes and say what he must do or be, especially when we have contrary evidence. After all, why did Jesus say it would have been better for Judas not to have been born? Even the lowest place in heaven would be good!

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skeptical-theism/

2 Likes

The problem with any exclusive route to God or salvation is that it turns it into a global postcode Lottery. Religion is mostly derived from the place or culture you are in. Even if they come into contact with Christianity there is no reason to think that it will supersede what their family or local culture has taught them.
Christ’s Passion was at a particular time and place, which is all very well with modern communications but there are literally millions for who the story was either not yet passed, or who never got the chance to hear, let alone believe it.
Exclusivity limits both God and access to Him. It would be denying any genuine believer who was just born in the wrong time and place.

Richard

2 Likes

God is just. That means he is fair. But approaching him with humility is kind of important.

By whose definition? Yours or His?

And how does that help?

Universalism would seem to be the only just answer. Exclusivity would seem to be unjust for any who are automatically excluded through ignorance or loyalty to family and/or culture.

Richard

This might be a little more accessible:

1 Like

Basically, God’s ways are higher than our ways.

3 Likes

I doubt if too many have seen this, and it’s appropriate here, a little piece by C.H. Spurgeon on election:

An important excerpt:

There is no more humbling doctrine in Scripture than that of election, none more promotive of gratitude, and, consequently, none more sanctifying. Believers should not be afraid of it, but adoringly rejoice in it.

I think this is important:

if he judges it best to leave the condemned to suffer the righteous sentence, none may arraign him at their bar.

It totally misses the point that those who despise double predestination do so not at their own bar but at God’s: the arraignment is not for violating human standards but His own.

1 Like

I am sure that we can all find reputable preachers to back up our doctrinal beliefs.

At the end of the day we are trying to second-guess God which is never a good idea. If Scripture was obvious and clear there would be no discussion, but sadly this is not the case. Jesus spent hours discussing the scriptures of His day and we are not a party to what He said on the matter.
We have to accept that there is not a single viewpoint or a certainty of which one is “true”. All we can do is rationalise it to our own understanding of both God and morality and justice and so on while remembering that God claims to be above our understanding on these matters.

We can and should discuss.

We cannot dictate.

Richard

This still is too:

And I think God’s omnitemporality gives a different perspective on predestination, double or any other, at least enough that I’m not going to blame him for anything like those in the Arminian camp say they would have to, to accept God’s sovereignty.

And therefore the arraignment is theirs, not God’s.

You both seem to think you know what God is doing in respect to time after death.

As you obviously do not, the whole discussion is academic.

Nothing is important.

Richard

https://www.christianityboard.com There are a few CU there.

Cue some vaguely sinister background music … then the narrator ominously drones “They walk among us … undetected … they’re coming for your children, your families, your churches … for you!”

  • I’d love to watch an anti-intellectual hack their way through this forest. :laughing:

Screenshot 2024-01-12 at 16-50-46 Rethinking Life After Death (NT Wright)