Is There Harm in teaching Universalism?

[Guest]

Hi Eddie,

Thank you for your post regarding Lincoln. I found it very edifying and, like Paidion, have saved a copy. As you probably know, Lincoln seemed to have a great affinity for the Quakers (who, by and large, are universalists).

Here is a link to a very old London Times article which describes a visit to Lincoln from the Quaker preacher Eliza Gurney along with a group of Friends (Quakers). Apparently, this meeting had a profound impact on Lincoln.
Click Here for the Article

The Quakers, in spite of their universalist bent, have been at the forefront of social justice movements including the abolition of slavery in Britain, the Underground Railroad in America, the women's suffrage movement, prison reform, compassionate care for the handicapped and mentally ill, etc., etc.

Prof. Hans A. Schmitt, who specialized in European history, related the following story:

In 1938, Rufus Jones, George Walton, and Robert Yarnall followed a shared leading to Germany to meet with the German SS about releasing Jews. Because Friends [Quakers] had initiated a massive feeding program in Germany after World War I, they had reason to hope the Germans would believe in their good will.

The three men said they had come "to inquire in the most friendly manner whether there is anything we can do to promote life ... and to relieve suffering ..." After hearing their requests, the SS officers left the room to confer. The three Americans bowed their heads "and entered upon a time of deep, quiet meditation and prayer" while they waited for the officers to return. Later they learned that their room had been bugged and their "silence" had confirmed the earnestness of their mission.

They were then told that they could proceed with their work of Jewish evacuation and that other Quaker representatives would be permitted to travel unhindered throughout Germany and Austria to implement their purpose. In the U.S., the entire mission was seen as a breakthrough. ... The Quakers received a grant to finance the work of a new team of Quakers to be sent to Germany, and plans were drafted for a camp to house refugees receiving visas to the U.S. But the plans were never realized because American politicians decided not to accept the refugees.

I say all this not so much to toot the horn of Quakerism but to point out that the belief that God cares equally for all and will reconcile all to Himself has proven to be a motivator for great acts of unselfish love rather than selfish indulgence.

[Guest]

Danny,

To pick up where I left off...

With respect to "proportional justice", I am not arguing for the moment
with God's final disposition of the wicked. What I am trying to get at is the question; By what measure does a Universalist use to determine whether or not, God's punishment is "fair" and or proportional? what is "fair" or proportional for example, about the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Conquest of Caanan, Nadab and Abihu, or even from the NT, Annanias and Sapphirah? It does not matter to my argument whether or not God will or won't deal with the problem of of sin and evil 'eternally' at this point. But the issue really is, is God "fair" for the extreme punishment that has been meeted out in this life? C'mon, death for eating from the 'wrong tree'? Why did God put the tree there in the first place?

Here is the veiled accusation imbedded with in CU, imo. Here imo is the 'hiss of the snake'. Here is the lie imo, "you shall surely not die'. The charge that God is not "fair", unjust, a sadist who enjoys torture is how CU pictures God from any other view than their own.
I have already said if I could 'pick' a theology I like, I would pick CU!
But that is not where the evidence leads..

For now,
In Jesus
Bob

[Guest]

As for the matter of "proportional" justice, there can be little doubt that, in the final analysis, people will never get from God worse than what they deserve—though, through repentance and forgiveness, they may get far better than what they deserve. The New Testament emphasis on the judgment always emphasizes that men will be judged "according to their works."

We are not in a position to weigh the specific gravity of a particular work, whether good or bad, since we do not have knowledge of motives, of opportunity, of moral enlightenment, etc., which accrue to each case, and which determine the magnitude of an offense in God's eyes. However, God does not labor under our handicaps. Since He knows all things, He will always judge according to His own standards of proportional judgment, which He laid down for Israel's magistrates: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, blow for blow, stripe for stripe, burn for burn, life for life." This oft-repeated standard in the law surely confirms that righteous penalties must be proportional to the offense.

As for the proportionateness of the judgments of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., I am inclined to believe that these judgments were not disproportionately severe, in that the wages of sin is death, and those who were thus judged did a lot of sinning before God killed them (just as we have). Physical death is not the last word in God's judgment, and is a consequence that all sinners face—even after they have been saved and forgiven. Thus, it is the judgment of the last day that will be the ultimate settling of scores, and (apart from the cases of forgiven sinners) that will be proportionate to individual guilt.

[Guest]

Steve,

I completely agree with your evaluation. It is indeed God's call and His alone to "judge us according to our works". But even here, there is a distinction made by God over the the works of the faithful and the works of the un-godly wicked. There is a difference how we will be 'judged' as believers. Whatever justice He dispenses, will always be proportional to His own standards and righteousness. But in saying this, are you saying the final disposition of the 'wicked' would be less than proportional if it includes either 'eternal seperation' or annihillation? It seems to me, neither Jesus or God left any real ambiguities on the matter of the 'wicked'. They are altogether portrayed differently than those who are in the houshold of faith. I do not 'weigh' the gravity of a persons sin, nor do I have to in order to understand the class of people God calls 'wicked'.
Apparently, it isn't merely sinful behaviour we find in all people, that God is classifing as the "wicked". It seems to me this particular class of people are those who by their own dispositions, follow evil, rather than through
repentance seek God and His goodness.

[Guest]

Hello Paidion,

Quote: "That they suffered death is a quite different matter than their suffering eternal torture, or even annihilation. As Origen put it, all rational beings have been created in order to exist. So their non-existence would defeat that purpose. Also their existence in an eternal state of torment would defeat God's loving purposes for all.
_________________
I can truly share the sentiment Don. But the rub comes when CU insists that for God to seperate the wicked eternally somehow milatates against His loving nature. The most loving thing God will do, is eliminate the cause of all evil without doing violence to the relative free-will He gave to His Image bearers. Evil cannot and does not exisit in and of itself. It is not a substance but a corruption of the good substances God made. If something or someone becomes altogether corrupt, it no longer can be used for its original intended purposes, nor can it be "salvaged". The metaphor of Gehenna Jesus used, served as a great example of what will happen to those whov'e become 'useless' . There was 'apparently' no redemption intended or implied from the city dump. I think Jesus' audience understood His intended meaning. There is apparently with God, a limit to His patience. But, its not our call of course to determine where that line is. Our job is to make every effort to enter by the Narrow Gate.
At some point the Gate Keeper will close the gate. Those left outside, will be in outer darkenss where there will be " wailing and gnashing of teeth".

[Guest]

The most loving thing God will do, is eliminate the cause of all evil without doing violence to the relative free-will He gave to His Image bearers. Evil cannot and does not exisit in and of itself. It is not a substance but a corruption of the good substances God made. If something or someone becomes altogether corrupt, it no longer can be used for its original intended purposes, nor can it be "salvaged". The metaphor of Gehenna Jesus used, served as a great example of what will happen to those whov'e become 'useless' . There was 'apparently' no redemption intended or implied from the city dump. I think Jesus' audience understood His intended meaning. There



It's interesting Bob , how much you add to the bible to squeeze out your interpretations.
1. Without doing violence to free will? Is free will guarenteed in the bible? What if a sinner changes his free will in the lake of fire? You say it's to late? Where does it say that?
In fact Rev 22.17 says the opposite.
2. You claim if something becomes corrupt it can't be salvaged? The entire bible is about redemption from corruption.
3. You think Jesus's audience understood what? Did you take a survey? There is nothing specific in the OT on hell and pagan greeks believed all kinds of different things.
4. Gehenna is not the last stop , the lake of fire is and it has fire and brimstone in it.
Brimstone is sulfer which is a cleansing agent or purifying agent. Fire can destroy or purify and brimstone purifies.
Over 500 people in the NT saw the risen Christ and believed , are they a special class of people and only they can see the resurrected Christ and believe yet no one else will ever get that opportunity?
In law they call that "precedence." A precedence has been established my friend which is that God accepted belief based on physically seeing Christ resurrected.
It's already on the books, it can be done again.

[karenstricycle]

Danny wrote:

Personally, I believe it's His kindness that leads to repentance in this life and that perfect love casts out fear.

You have me confused here. We have been informed that those in hell will be saved "just like us". If we are led to repentance by His kindness, is that how they are saved in hell? I thought you folks believed they were tormented into repentance.

Also according to the best Universalist lexicographers at this site, you should have said "perfect love casts out pruning." (I will explain for those who don't get it.)

[Guest]

Hi Bob,

(I've been writing this offline in bits and pieces throughout the day in between other activities, so I apologize if this post comes across as fragmented.)

I am reasonably confident that all who are participating in this debate have a desire to know truth. But is our desire to know truth objective or subjective? How much does our own subjectivity or sensitivities "cloud" or detract from our objectivity?

Only God is truly objective. We humans "see through a glass darkly". Especially in Summertime. 8)

I take the Bible as a whole. One book of many books. What is God like and what does He want from me and for me ? What does He desire for the rest of His Image bearers? Where do I fit in to this story? What will be the final outcome of history when all is finally consumated? Is there any continuity of thought between the two testaments? Like any good novel, the bible reveals a beginning, middle and end to the story.

I would venture that most people on this forum incorporate this approach into their study of the Bible.

If I had to pick one thought that is consistantly present throughout the bible it would be the thought of 'seperation'.

Now that's interesting and I think perhaps is at the root of our disagreements. If I had to pick one thought that is consistantly present throughout the Bible, it would be "reconciliation". If I had to break down the Bible story into its most basic components, it would be:

Love
Sin
Wrath
Atonement
Reconciliation (Shalom)


Regarding what happens to those who die having never heard or understood the Gospel, I didn't inquire so much about what you personally know, but asked "How does your system of belief answer this question?" Surely your theology has a position on this topic, otherwise how do you justify evangelism and missions (or the lack thereof)?

This question gets to the heart of many topics that have been discussed. For example, you and I didn't choose to be born into a Judeo-Christian culture. Why were we given the distinct advantage (in terms of becoming followers of Jesus) of birth in the West rather than in an Islamic country? If salvation is predicated upon "accepting Christ", then why were we given such an undeserved advantage? On the other hand, if salvation is not predicated on intentionally "accepting Christ" (at least in this life) then there seems to be more equity (or, dare I say, justice). If salvation can occur apart from knowing Christ in this life then does that simply mean one can one get saved and enter into eternal life apart from Christ, or is salvation still through Christ but post-mortem?

IMO, to be qualified as an 'un-believer' in the Christian era one would have to pre-suppose a person 'heard the gospel' at some level and rejected it. You do see a distinction between ignorance and un-belief, don't you?

So if you believe that people can be saved apart from knowing Christ in this life (aka the ignorant) how does that work? At what point does Christ play a role in their entrance into the eternal Kingdom of God?

Not all people are characterized in the bible as God's "children".

According to my belief system, there are those who, in this life, come into the role of "the elect" (aka "the Israel of God", the "royal priesthood", the "chosen people", etc.). To what degree this occurs as a result of free will vs pre-destination is a whole other discussion. Either way, the "elect" have been "elected" for a reason, which is to serve and be the image of God on earth. This is why you see universalist Christians actively engaged in ministry to the oppressed and marginalized.

An aspect of True Justice as exercised by God in its ultimate 'penal' form, is for the specific removal of evil from the community of faith.

Agreed. Evil must be dealt with. The Flood was more about purification than destruction. No one, with the exception of the remnant of Noah and his family, could escape it. Likewise, for most, the final judgement will be calamitous, but the end result will be the separation and destruction of evil, sin and death from the person, so that the person can be restored to God. Also, like in the story of the Flood (and Sodom, et al), there is always a remnant; those who take the narrow path and avoid the calamity.

What I am trying to get at is the question; By what measure does a Universalist use to determine whether or not, God's punishment is "fair" and or proportional?

As I tried to explain in my previous post, to try to flatten God's justice down to proportionality (ie "let the punishment fit the crime") is to squeeze the justice of God into the procrustean bed of man's view of justice. I think we both agree that God's justice is disproportionate. The difference is that I see it as disproportionate towards mercy while you appear to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction.

Here is the veiled accusation imbedded with in CU, imo. Here imo is the 'hiss of the snake'. Here is the lie imo, "you shall surely not die'. The charge that God is not "fair", unjust, a sadist who enjoys torture is how CU pictures God from any other view than their own.

The charge (if we must use that word) that Universal Reconciliation makes is that other views tend to present a caricature of God. Here's an example. This is an excerpt from the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by the well-known 18th century preacher Jonathan Edwards:

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment.”

That sounds more like the god of the Klingons than the God of the Bible!

I have two final questions, and I want to be very careful with them. If I cross a line in asking these questions, please tell me and I will apologize and withdraw them. You wrote in an earlier post about the death of your mother. I spoke almost the exact same words at my father's funeral as you spoke to your father about your mother, btw. Your mother (like my father) did not profess to be a Christian before her death. My first question is this, and I want you to answer it honestly. Please don't give the canned answer about "trusting God". That's all well and good (and I agree), but I want you to answer this question honestly and from your heart and not in terms of what God thinks but in terms of what you think: Do you think your mom deserves eternal torment? The second question is like it. You know, probably better than almost anyone, what a unique and precious person your mother was. Do you think she deserves to cease to exist altogether?

[karenstricycle]

Rick wrote:

Many undoubtedly thought "I might become a Christian later" only to die before then or, otherwise, put it off till it was too late. Any number of rationalizations can be taken to procrastinate. Universalism offers a very convenient reason to put off believing: You can pay the price for an ungodly life after you die---and still be with God forever: AFTER THAT. This provides a "double out procrastination ". First, no need to become a Christian during my lifetime. Second, it will all be taken care after I die. "Eat, drink, for tomorrow we die! And get to be with God anyway!"

I think Rick is correct in his concern, only the danger is even greater than he suggests, and is apparently not acknowledged by the CUs.

If a person is enjoying a life of sin, which many do, in spite of what Todd says, they have a triple excuse to procrastinate! If they believe they will spend a period of time in hell being corrected [and no universalist can provide any proof how long that may be; the person can always imagine he will easily be corrected (remember, no retribution allowed)] they can say to theirself "I will have my pleasure now, and repent when I am old. And if I die suddenly somehow before I can repent, I can undergo correction and be with God regardless!

It is undeniably in man's nature to enjoy now and pay later. That is why it is so hard to diet, or break any pleasurable habit that does cumulative harm to the self. The message of the scripture is clear: repent now! Now is all we have. Any excuse is harmful.

[Guest]

Hello Homer!

I was wondering when I might get a cogent reply to the thread's topic!

Yes, we've identified universalism's primary falseness:
It actually "gives the excuse" to not become a Christian....

That being said, with an Amen, and two witnesses:
Universalism is a very, very dangerous and harmful doctrine.

God bless you, Brother Homer