|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Rob Bell and Universalism
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Mr Nooma's forthcoming book Love Wins has been met with some controversy due to its supposed universalist themes.
Here's an example of the kind of response he's been getting. There's a video preview of the book lower in the page, done in true Nooma style, in which Bell asks a lot of questions, but only alludes to his what his own view might be.
Now, as a universalist myself, I'm quite glad that a prominent Christian is at least raising these kind of questions.
What I don't get is the strong condemnation and phrases like 'false teacher', 'wolf in sheep's clothing' which are being chucked about. When I talked to my minister about my own beliefs (I attend an evangelical Baptist Church), his response was "I disagree with you, but recognise that it's a belief which has been part of the orthodox church since the very beginning, so I have no problems with you believing that." This to me seems very reasonable. But very often universalism is met with strong opposition, and the (in my view unfounded) pronouncement that it is denying the gospel.
I'm not interested in discussing the theological justification for Universalism - we've done that elsewhere. What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
[ 02. December 2011, 09:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
I have my (strong, vehement) opinions on this. I don't think I can express them in terms that are understandable.
But I think it boils down to boundaries, and community, and us, and them, and being afraid of having boundaries that are not solid and well-defined.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
It makes people feel less special if God loves everyone.
It's an ego thing.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Having strongly defined, black-and-white boundaries is easier. And less scary. And less tribal.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm not interested in discussing the theological justification for Universalism - we've done that elsewhere. What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
When I find opposition to my (pretty universalist) beliefs I find quite a bit of fear there. I think some people think if they let go of one aspect then the whole house of cards will fall down.
It doesn't ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
<typo city!>
[ 28. February 2011, 11:37: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Um I hate to say this Wood, but you sound rather tribal and as if you have solid, well-defined, black and white boundaries between whatever it is you believe and what you think non-universalists believe. It's a bit scary in fact...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Having strongly defined, black-and-white boundaries is easier. And less scary. And less tribal.
More tribal, surely?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Um I hate to say this Wood, but you sound rather tribal and as if you have solid, well-defined, black and white boundaries between whatever it is you believe and what you think non-universalists believe. It's a bit scary in fact...
Told you I wasn't being terribly coherent.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Having strongly defined, black-and-white boundaries is easier. And less scary. And less tribal.
More tribal, surely?
More tribal. Yes. My mistake.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I see a lot of 'Churchy' activities as pretty tribal. Hymn singing comes to mind. I'm sure some of it is healthy, but when it comes to exclusive beliefs to keep those who are different out - then it needs questioning imo.
The idea that God loves and accepts people of all faiths and none is not one which all Christians want to embrace. Maybe because it removes a lot of the need for evangelising?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It's possible to find reasons to evangelise even if you're not a universalist, although I'd be hard pushed to build an argument from scriptural precedent.
I think the concern about universalism from christian quarters is more to do with how (or when) the issue of individual sin is dealt with (or as the writer in the link from the OP puts it, the wrath of God).
[doh]
[ 28. February 2011, 11:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I think that, in matters of religion as in other areas of life, many people operate with a zero-sum mentality...in this case, if God extends an extraordinary amount of grace in order to save an "undeserving" person, then the worth of the grace extended to me, a Real Christian[tm], is somehow diminished.
And if you combine that perhaps unconscious fear with a literalist reading of Scripture -- "Well, if the Bible talks about a hell with everlasting fire, then it must be so" -- well, then Bell is a dangerous heretic and Very Bad Man.
I read some conservative Evangelical handwringing over Bell ("I'm praying for him"...often the pious equivalent of "**** you," IMHO) and my own thought was that I wished all this anti-heretic passion could be channeled toward, say, con-ev nationalist idolatry, "creeping gnostisicsm," the Prosperity Gospel or some other more worthy cause.
[ 28. February 2011, 12:01: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It makes people feel less special if God loves everyone.
It's an ego thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Having strongly defined, black-and-white boundaries is easier. And less scary. And less tribal.
I doubt that either are generally true. I don't think there's a need a postulate any ulterior motive at all. Just put yourself in the position of someone who is convinced that universalism is false - to him, it must follow that the universalist is telling people who are, in actual fact, headed for Hell, that they are basically safe to carry on in their own way. Is it a surprise that some people might consider universalism to be an irresponsible and dangerous teaching?
Imagine that a friend of yours had swallowed deadly poison, and the antidote was right there in front of him, and some very earnest, very well-meaning person was telling him that the worst which was in store for him was a bit of an upset stomach, and that he didn't need to take the antidote (although the advisor had, personally, often found it to be helpful), wouldn't you feel that some forceful expression of a contrary opinion was appropriate, since you knew that if your friend didn't take the cure, he'd die in agony?
The facts alone (as so perceived) would be enough to cause some people to get angry. It's not necessary to assume that ego, or group identity, or any other sort of bad faith, is behind it.
(FWIW, I'm a hopeful-universalist, and believe that no one is beyond God's mercy, but do not believe that we have a warrant for believing as a certainty that no one will ultimately reject that mercy. I'm not angry about a more thorough-going universalism, because it doesn't (on my view) put anyone at a significantly increased risk of suffering eternal misery. But if I thought that it did, I hope I'd have enough compassion to be at least a little narked to hear it taught).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the concern about universalism from christian quarters is more to do with how (or when) the issue of individual sin is dealt with (or as the writer in the link from the OP puts it, the wrath of God).
This is where I think it's a misunderstanding of what Universalist theology says.
I believe that people will have to answer for their sin, and that it's a lot better to choose to follow Christ now than not to.
The only difference is that I believe that there will be an end to that process; that God's discipline will be restorative - not that people will be annihilated/punished for ever at the end of it.
My main problem with the more mainstream view is that it often claims to be solely based on 'what the bible teaches'. But core arguments (that repentance is not possible after death, and that it's impossible to derive universalism from the bible's teachings) to me are demonstrably not true when you actually look at the bible. It's possible to derive many different teachings of the afterlife from the bible - there are some very 'Universalist' passages in there. And the idea of repentance not being possible is a philosophical construct based on the underlying theology, not something stated in the bible itself.
Criticisms of Universalism seem to boil down to the caricature of "God'll just relent and let everyone in anyhow", which isn't really what Universalism is about.
It was the stigma of that type of caricature that stopped me from embracing Universalism for a long time, which made it hard to be objective when I was looking at the theological arguments for and against it.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There are conservative evangelical 'heresy hunters' who specialise in criticising the Prosperity Gospel etc, LutheranChick ... but they've not made as much noise of late as they have in the past.
Some of them are so vehemently anti anything that doesn't agree with them that they can be counter-productive.
That said, there are some good conservative evangelical critiques around - but you need to be wary of a particular bias with many of them.
But that's true of anything.
In my experience, the huffing and puffing tends to die down after a wee bit. The big fuss over Steve Chalke and his 'cosmic child abuse' comment over penal substitutionary atonement seems to have died down, for instance, but it was hot a few years back.
There are certain shibboleths that conservative evangelicals will always rally around. PSA is one of them. Eternal conscious torment in hell fire is another ... but its popularity is waning.
You could also add 'sola scriptura', justification by grace through faith, regeneration through faith (rather than baptismal regeneration) and a number of other core issues to the equation.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
to him, it must follow that the universalist is telling people who are, in actual fact, headed for Hell, that they are basically safe to carry on in their own way.
This is exactly what I mean. It doesn't follow that to be a Universalist means that you think that people are basically safe to carry on in their own way at all. It's based on that caricature, and an oversimplification of the theology.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Seems like there are some problems of definition here. I note Justin Taylor in his addition has to pull back (pending actually reading the book ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) from alleging "full-blown universalism" to (perhaps) annihilationism, and Gamaliel, you seem to be conflating the two, too.
There's quite a lot of theological room between "only the elect" and "all men" being saved.
[ 28. February 2011, 12:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm not interested in discussing the theological justification for Universalism - we've done that elsewhere. What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
When I find opposition to my (pretty universalist) beliefs I find quite a bit of fear there. I think some people think if they let go of one aspect then the whole house of cards will fall down.
It doesn't
<typo city!>
To be terribly honest, Boogie, I don't find your beliefs frightening. Just sometimes tremendously vague and woolly. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Though universalism ia very much a minority view within Christianity, it has a long pedigree, and may have been much more widespread in the early Church than it is now. Many of the Church Fathers taught Apokatastasis or the Resoration of All Things. Of the six theological schools known to exist during the first five centuries, four of them clearly taught the final salvation of all souls: Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis. Ephesus taught conditional immortality or annihilation of the wicked and only one, Carthage (under Rome's influence) taught endless punishments.
I have been a universalist for over 40 years, but I've pulled back from the extreme position I held when I was younger, not because of the flack it always seems to draw from Christians who seem so sure that many will perish, but because I now acknowledge that it's God's call, not ours. I live quite comfortably with this definition from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: "Lord, let me never be parted from you." If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him "all things are possible" (Mt 19:26).
If we acknowledge that God desires all to be saved, and that, for God all things are possible, I think we can have every confidence in His mercy.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
The arguments for a "purgatorial" view of hell are not new. William Barclay got himself into a lot of hot water for expressing them forty years ago, but in reality they go all the way back to Origen. What is new is that this time they are being postulated by people who heretofore have been squarely in the evangelical camp, and other evangelicals --- some other evangelicals --- are actually willing to give them consideration.
I've been a wannabe universalist ever since first reading Barclay on the subject back in the '80s. In the end, I think one has to concede it's God's call, but one can certainly hope. If God is love AND God is just, I should like to think that in the end, hell will be emptied.
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Though universalism ia very much a minority view within Christianity, it has a long pedigree, and may have been much more widespread in the early Church than it is now.
Which is why when people condemn it as 'heresy' nowadays they don't know what they're talking about. AFAIK it was never condemned in any of the ecumenical councils and has always been within the spectrum of orthodox Christian belief.
(I have a general problem with the idea of calling anyone a heretic anyhow, but even within accepted usage it seems to be a big stretch to extend it to universalism).
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think I am conflating the two, Eutychus, but I can see what you're getting at.
I don't know how 'Orthodox' this is but I've heard Orthodox say, 'We may hope that all will be saved but we can't say for sure that all will be saved ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
What I mean is that I think there's a lot of theological room between believing there is hope for all to be saved (surely not a belief which is the sole preserve of the Orthodox?) and definite eternal conscious torment in hell for at least some.
Meanwhile, on reflection, I'm wondering whether Wood believes that everyone except universalists is going to hell ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[ 28. February 2011, 14:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - you're right, Eutychus, this is indeed a view that is not restricted to the Orthodoxy - just as 'orthodoxy' itself isn't (as I keep telling the Orthodox but they won't listen ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ).
I don't know whether Wood is saying what you're teasingly accusing him of saying, but I do know that he's had to put with some crap over the years, just as you have done ...
So if he's a bit hellish about some aspects then I can hardly blame him ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
From a Protestant perspective, universalism doesn't fit with most common understanding of scripture. Off the top of my head, I can think of three views supported by scripture: damnation of unbelievers, annihalation of unbelievers, and univeralism. If you maintain scripture is infallible, you must reconcile the portions of scripture that support your belief with those that don't. More evidence exists for damnation of the unbeliever than the other two especially universalism. Given the hermeneutic of those who preach eternal damnation, dismissing the evidence for universalism makes more sense than trying to explain away all of the evidence for the other views.
For those who are not Protestant, is is likely that either they are unfamiliar with the historical support for universalism, dismiss it as heresy, or figure that universalism has since been rejected by the larger church. Nevertheless, as I understand it, universalism remains a possibility in both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology. Hans Urs Von Balthasar, not associated with the more liberal wing of the Roman Catholic Church, believed it was a possibility and his view along with Rahner's more well know Anonymous Christian seem to be the standard understanding of the issue for modern Roman Catholics.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Right
Firstly stop simplifying Protestantism, Biblical inerrancy is not the fall point of Protestantism. The holding the bible as supreme authority for what we do never went solely with inerrantist perspective.
Let me remind you therefore that United Churches of Christ, PCUSA and many Methodist are bona fide main line Protestants. Indeed if you want to know what is central to Protestantism you are better looking at them than at your independent evangelical. Very few of their members are inerrantist.
After all John Hick is a Protestant Reformed theologian and you can't get much more liberal than that.
What is more remarkable is the way liberals in the Reformed tradition use the Bible. The question is something Biblical is never far from their minds. Yet their styles and ways of reading the Bible are very, very different from your inerrantist approach.
Their approach is simply:
- here the bible is contradictory
- so what is going on with this?
- what situations does the contradiction arise in?
- what can we learn from this contradictory evidence?
Often here we learn that there is truth both in the judgement of God and in the overwhelming love of God and that these two are not easily contained in neat theological paradigms.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
As Eliab said . . it's really very obvious.
Some issues are really matters of life and death. This is one of them. I tend to universalism, but with less than full conviction. But you don't want to debate that.
I was told by a friend about a leader of 20th century thought in statistics, who later in life, was co-opted by the Tobacco Industry to lecture on the subject of the non-conclusive nature of the link between smoking and cancer. He was ostracised by most of his community. Is that hard to understand?
Is it hard to understand why people get emotional about abortion? If you really believe that it is killing kids, the emotion follows. And if you really believe that the Unsaved go to Hell, doesn't the emotion also follow? OK I don't share their belief but I understand why they are emotionally engaged.
I know universalists say that they think that non-believers will have a hard time of it. But what are they saying? The love of God will be beaten into them by the punishments of Hell?
In fact, I think universalism goes with calvinism, otherwise you have to ask as did CSL, are they saved "according to their will or against it".
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not interested in discussing the theological justification for Universalism - we've done that elsewhere. What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
It's born out of ignorance. For instance, the page you linked to was an attack on Rob Bell suggesting that he has moved very far away from a Biblical Christianity. What they really meant to say was that he had moved away from their concepts of Christianity and that they were totally ignorant of two thousand years of Christian history, tradition, Biblical readings and scholarship and theology that spelt out a million alternative readings to theirs. Some people genuinely can't cope with a world that is big, often unfathomable and terribly grey. They need a narrow, black and white world, and they spend all their time and energy trying to create it and vehemently locking out anyone who might disagree with them even in the smallest point.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
I'm going to add my two cents' worth, although I know full well this may throw the discussion into the Dead Horses' inerrancy corral.
The question of universal redemption, along with such other matters as abortion, homosexuality, women's ordination, and so forth, is beyond debate with some evangelicals because of their a priori insistence that Scripture is verbally inspired, thus inerrant, and (following the same line of logic) always internally consistent. It seems to me that if you start with that assumption, you have a hermeneutic that pretty much precludes discussion of any of these things ("God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." How many times have I heard that from my con-evo or fundie friends?)
[ 28. February 2011, 15:46: Message edited by: WearyPilgrim ]
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Some issues are really matters of life and death. This is one of them. I tend to universalism, but with less than full conviction. But you don't want to debate that.
Obviously it's not my call and if you want to debate it, go ahead! I get your 'less than full conviction' - none of us know for sure what will happen, and I think a certain amount of agnosticism is the healthiest thing (certainly healthier than telling someone that you know for sure they're going to Hell).
I'm wondering what will happen with those evangelical church leaders who have lapped up Nooma until now, but will suddenly feel all awkward because Rob Bell's actually a heretic ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) . Are we going to see bonfires of Nooma DVDs lighting up the evangelical sky? Or might this actually provoke some healthy debate?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think that'll happen all of a sudden, Goperryrevs. There have been some concerns about Nooma in con evo circles for some time. The mileage varies, but I suspect those that use the Nooma material will continue to use it and those that don't, won't.
Your place sounds more 'open evangelical' to me - like many Baptist and Anglican evangelical outfits. They'll probably continue to use Nooma. The more hell-fire-and-damnation types probably never took to Nooma in the first place.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
You may be surprised to discover that I am not a universalist! LOL
What I do believe is this:
That God loves the world - not just the church.
That Jesus died for the world - not just the church.
That the Gospel is appropriate, and is Good News for all: young and old, rich and poor, black and white, gay and straight (and all the variations ), people of faith, people with no faith.
I believe that eternal life, the forgiveness and grace of God is freely available to all people at all times and that 'whosoever will, may be saved.'
As a Wesleyan/Arminian I believe in 'unlimited atonement' - rather than the Calvinist's 'limited atonement.'
Because the grace of God is universally available, because there is no restriction on who may be saved, because there are no ceremonies that need to be observed in order to receive grace, because there are no 'chosen ones', because there is no 'one correct church', and particularly because none of us can have any kind of claim of grace in order to possess it for ourselves or our kind, I am content to say that no one need be excluded from the Kingdom.
But I also have to say that no one, by the same token of freely accessible grace, can presume to be included either.
Grace is abundantly available but it is not irresistable nor automatic. Grace is not conferred upon the unwilling; neither is it conferred upon those unconscious to the claims of God's love. The grace that saves is not given without repentance, and common grace - the grace that everyone who has ever lived has receioved - is there to lead people, if they follow it, to the point where they may choose to follow Christ.
It is only in the choosing that saving grace is conferred, that the penitent is redeemed and the soul is made a child of God and a part of the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom is denied to those who refuse the claims of Christ but to those who have heard imperfectly; to those who have been misled by false assumptions or faulty teaching, and, of course, to those who never had the opportunity to hear of the love of Christ, then God's grace and mercy is abundant and they will be judged according to the light they have received.
Why do people reject universalism?
well it has nothing to do with parochialism ro fear of lowering the boundaries.
It has nothing whatever to do with having an inage of a wrathful god who likes to smite sinners.
it has to do with a rounded picture of God who is love unlimited, compassion that is indescribeable and grace that is overflowing and yet who is holy, just, sin-hating and perfect in his dealings with us.
There is, in the heart of the non-universalist, a desire that all men and women should be saved - hence the great catholic and protestant missionery endeavours and the tremendous efforst to evangelise the world; and hyet there is also a great sadness that so many are dying in trespasses and sins, with no assurance or hope of eternal life.
God wants all to be saved - what more could he do than to give his only Begotten Son to a substitutionary, sacrificial, love-expressing death?
But not even God can frogmarch an atheist into heaven and make him love him for it.
The attitude, prevalent in school sports' days that 'all must win a prize' only destroys the concepts of grace, justice, mercy, repentance and faith in the heart of the Gospel.
There will be those, dreadfully and heart-breakingly, to whom the Judge of the Throne will say, 'depart from me for I never knew you.'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But I think it boils down to boundaries, and community, and us, and them, and being afraid of having boundaries that are not solid and well-defined.
Oh please. And universalism derives from a desire to be popular in society, a denial of the holiness of God, and thinking sin doesn't matter that much.
Shibboleths aired, how about a serious discussion of why people come to their views without impugning their motives?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Your place sounds more 'open evangelical' to me - like many Baptist and Anglican evangelical outfits. They'll probably continue to use Nooma. The more hell-fire-and-damnation types probably never took to Nooma in the first place.
Oh, we don't use anything new-fangled like Nooma in my church - we're still on 80's editions of songs of fellowship for our music books!
But yes, despite the con-evo core, there's actually quite some variety of theology in our church. And as you can tell the minister is very accepting and inclusive despite being reasonably conservative himself.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The attitude, prevalent in school sports' days that 'all must win a prize' only destroys the concepts of grace, justice, mercy, repentance and faith in the heart of the Gospel.
"All must" and "all shall" aren't the same thing. How does it destroy grace for God to extend it to all? How does it destroy justice, when Christ has died for us? How does it destroy mercy to extend it to all?
Repentence and faith are also key, but I believe, with some (certainly not all) of the ancient witnesses that the chance to repent will come after death as well as before it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Repentence and faith are also key, but I believe, with some (certainly not all) of the ancient witnesses that the chance to repent will come after death as well as before it.
And will all repent after death? I'm not being facetious - but in the only story (I think) we have about what is beyond the grave from Jesus lips, the rich man still seems to hold unrepentantly the attitudes he held in life.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Repentence and faith are also key, but I believe, with some (certainly not all) of the ancient witnesses that the chance to repent will come after death as well as before it.
And will all repent after death? I'm not being facetious - but in the only story (I think) we have about what is beyond the grave from Jesus lips, the rich man still seems to hold unrepentantly the attitudes he held in life.
No, not necessarily. That is why I am a soft universalist. It is possible that some people will not.
Interestingly two of the bible passages most commonly trotted out to prove the existence of torment in the afterlife, the Dives-and-Lazarus story and the sheep and goats in Matthew 25, portray salvation as being works-based and don't mention "faith" at all.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Too late to add:
As St Clive said, "The gates of Hell are locked on the inside."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
As usual on this topic, you talk a lot of sense mousethief.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It is kind of you to say so. I have done a great deal of reading and studying and praying about this topic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Right
Firstly stop simplifying Protestantism, Biblical inerrancy is not the fall point of Protestantism. The holding the bible as supreme authority for what we do never went solely with inerrantist perspective.
Let me remind you therefore that United Churches of Christ, PCUSA and many Methodist are bona fide main line Protestants. Indeed if you want to know what is central to Protestantism you are better looking at them than at your independent evangelical. Very few of their members are inerrantist.
After all John Hick is a Protestant Reformed theologian and you can't get much more liberal than that.
interestingly, though, Hick was booted from PCUSA on precisely his universalism. 20 yrs. later, though, we adopted a beautifully worded statement that wouldn't be too far from his pov.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The attitude, prevalent in school sports' days that 'all must win a prize' only destroys the concepts of grace, justice, mercy, repentance and faith in the heart of the Gospel.
"All must" and "all shall" aren't the same thing. How does it destroy grace for God to extend it to all? How does it destroy justice, when Christ has died for us? How does it destroy mercy to extend it to all?
Someone I know once told a story about that once.... had something to do with a vineyard and some workers hired at different times of the day....
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
Someone I know once told a story about that once.... had something to do with a vineyard and some workers hired at different times of the day....
Exactly.
It's making grace into a zero-sum proposition -- that if God extends what seems like more grace to a less "saveworthy" person, it somehow takes away from the grace of a more "deserving" person.
As Martin Luther said: We are all beggars. This is true. In the final analysis there is no one more "graceworthy" than another.
I also object to the idea that people who are not Christians of record or in a way that is easily discernable by self-assigned salvation police are "rejecting Christ." Did Gandhi really "reject Christ"? No; he rejected Christian dogma and Christian stupidity. Did my son-in-law "reject Christ" growing up in a Southern Baptist milieu where he lived in fear of bullying and beatings from his "good Christian" peers and neighbors because of his sexual orientation? No; he rejects the idiot Christians who have provided him with his primary understanding of Christianity.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
interestingly, though, Hick was booted from PCUSA on precisely his universalism. 20 yrs. later, though, we adopted a beautifully worded statement that wouldn't be too far from his pov.
Interesting indeed, he is still a recognised URC minister, at least I assume so, otherwise he'd have had to resign, although my Dad thirty years ago admitted he would not have been able to get a pastorate. However if I had guessed at his origin I would have said Congregational, normally our more liberal members are, so I would have assumed United Churches of Christ in the US. This despite having his book on Philosophy of Religion as a text for first theology in St Andrews.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I also object to the idea that people who are not Christians of record or in a way that is easily discernable by self-assigned salvation police are "rejecting Christ." Did Gandhi really "reject Christ"? No; he rejected Christian dogma and Christian stupidity. Did my son-in-law "reject Christ" growing up in a Southern Baptist milieu where he lived in fear of bullying and beatings from his "good Christian" peers and neighbors because of his sexual orientation? No; he rejects the idiot Christians who have provided him with his primary understanding of Christianity.
What a good point, LutheranChik. I've always been a so-called traditional evangelical as regards heaven and hell but I've never really examined the universalist position and your post is a good starting point for me to do so. Would God, who is both love and justice, refuse to accept into eternity with himself those who have been given such a distorted view of what he is like? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
I'm suprised that no-one's mentioned John Stott's Annihilationism yet.
ISTM that Rob Bell and Steve Chalke attract controversy in this way because they are espousing (as far as we can tell - Bell's latest product isn't out yet) non-evo positions from inside the evo community and attempting to justify them in an evo way.
I've certainly come across Bell and others being described as "neo-liberals".
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Antipathy to universalism ? It's because mandatory, compulsory universalism is impossible. As impossible, as meaningless as any other form of predestination. Both extremes predicated on a sub-sophomoric understanding of the omni-attributes of God which that lovable heresiarch Augustine infected the West with.
But it's mainly not due to that rational objection but due to psychotic fear in depraved damnationists. Like Augustine. Like all of us at sime stage of our development.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The attitude, prevalent in school sports' days that 'all must win a prize' only destroys the concepts of grace, justice, mercy, repentance and faith in the heart of the Gospel.
"All must" and "all shall" aren't the same thing. How does it destroy grace for God to extend it to all? How does it destroy justice, when Christ has died for us? How does it destroy mercy to extend it to all?
Someone I know once told a story about that once.... had something to do with a vineyard and some workers hired at different times of the day....
But what about the ones that were never hired at ANY time in the day, possibly because they turned down the job?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of the six theological schools known to exist during the first five centuries, four of them clearly taught the final salvation of all souls: Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis. Ephesus taught conditional immortality or annihilation of the wicked and only one, Carthage (under Rome's influence) taught endless punishments.
Could you quote a source for this please?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
