Page 1 of 12

Is There Harm in teaching Universalism?

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:47 am
by _Homer
On the TULIP thread Steve wrote, in part:
I do not waste time worrying whether it would be most accurate for me to say to an unbeliever, "If you don't become a Christian you will be condemned to go to a place of judgment and punishment that is described as a place that has fire and other terrible things in it," or to simply say, "If you don't become a Christian you will go to hell." I am not likely to make either statement to an unbeliever. The apostles never raised such an issue when evangelizing unbelievers, and (unless I am prepared to equate "hades" and/or "gehenna" with what we commonly call hell) it would appear that Jesus did not do so either.

If an unbeliever is not willing to surrender to King Jesus without first being told exactly what the consequences will be for his resistance, then I suspect that man has not yet the capacity to surrender on God's terms at all.

Anyway, without a clearer biblical witness on the subject than what we have, the question, to my mind, seems to be merely an academic one for Christians (to whom it has no direct relevance) to speculate about.
I must disagree with my brother Steve here.

First of all, the apostles had much to say about being saved. Among both Jews and Gentiles of that day there appears to have been a common understanding of the consequences of facing a final judgement. It was not necessary to dwell on hell, it was an implied consequence of not being saved IMO. It seems rather odd no consequence was mentioned of such an important matter, unless, that is, it was understood. People would naturally want to know. Luke's narratives are brief and he may not have considered it important to include what was said on this.

If an employee is working on a second story roof, you make sure he is trained in the safety precautions to take. You do not need to dwell on the result if he falls off, that is understood.

Regarding whether the Universalist doctrine is only a harmless curiosity, I am reminded of Ricky. Ricky was a good example of the thinking process of the unregenerate.

When I was a teenager, Ricky was hired where I worked and I got to know him, though not well. Ricky left that job and I didn't see him for awhile. One day he came by and I discovered he had taken a wrong path in life. He had come up with a check forging scheme in which he forged checks and had some girls cashing the checks for him. When I questioned Ricky about this, he said he knew how much time he would spend in jail if he was caught and convicted. He calculated how much money he was making off his crime, divided this by the time he might spend in jail, and came up with an hourly amount which was equivalent to a good wage! And to top that off, he said if he was not caught, he would have all the money and no time in jail! (I am not making this up!)

I do not believe Ricky's thought process much different than many unbelievers. When the seed of the gospel is planted in them, the ground is often not the best. Faith may be there, but be weak. Do they commit to Christ or not? As Jesus recommended, they count the cost. Is the gospel true? They may be inclined to believe it, but Satan is telling them its not true; so they consider, like Ricky, the possibility they may never get caught. But the cost if they do is huge: eternal judgement; Hell, if you will. Then they hear the Universalist gospel and another calculation enters in, just as with Ricky and his calculation of time in jail vs. the money he made. How long will they be in jail (hell) compared to the pleasures of this life? And Satan has another weapon in his arsenal: "You shall not surely die".

It is well and good to say they ought to come to Jesus not to avoid hell, not in their own self interest, but in His. But we must realize that most who come to Him are not very far up on Bernhard's "Ladder of Love". As their faith grows, they move on up that ladder. The preaching of Universalism is reported to have caused a great many to fall off that ladder in the 19th century!

The insurmountable problem for the CU who disbelieves the great majority of the Lexicons regarding the meaning of aionios is this: they can not tell us with any certainty what the word means regarding the punishment of the lost. It is not surprising to read of the concern among Universalists in the past whether this doctrine should be preached to the lost or remain an esoteric doctrine for the few.

God bless all!

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:49 am
by _STEVE7150
First of all, the apostles had much to say about being saved. Among both Jews and Gentiles of that day there appears to have been a common understanding of the consequences of facing a final judgement. It was not necessary to dwell on hell, it was an implied consequence of not being saved IMO. It seems rather odd no consequence was mentioned of such an important matter, unless, that is, it was understood. People would naturally want to know. Luke's narratives are brief and he may not have considered it important to include what was said on this.



It may or may not have been understood but perhaps not the way you understand it looking back at this 2,000 years later through westernized eyes that value literal descriptions.
Luke's narratives were not so brief that he could'nt have added a few more words nor Paul's or Peter's or James or John's.
The bible does allude to the basis that God wants to draw people like because "He loved us while we were yet sinners" , "It's the goodness of God that draws us."
God wants our hearts , i think that is a core teaching of the NT yet according to the so called traditionalists we should be writhing on the floor terrified about being in the hands of an angry God.
The God of the OT sometimes came across that way but Jesus really did'nt therefore which image of God is how God wants us to know Him?
Was Jesus a more intimate image of God or was the OT image the way God wants us to know him?
That is the choice and it appears people do see it differently.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:43 am
by __id_1679
Hello Homer,

Valid points to consider. When you mentioned in your post, the lie of the serpent, "You shall not surely die"; imo, this is the central reason to reject
Universalism as a false doctrine, or a "doctrine of demons". You have to follow out to the end of where their "truth" leads to understand its implications.

When I was "brought" to Christ, it was not out of a fear of going to "hell".
However, I knew it was there. I eventually understood the final outcome of those who for a lifetime, completely reject the Gospel of Jesus.
When I hear Gospel presentations that begin with the threat of hell, frankly, I cringe. I don't think its always the best place to start. But then again, I am not the Holy Spirit. It seems to me also, since it is the Spirit of God who 'draws' men into Christ, why do CU's think a mans lifetime in some cases, is insufficient to bring about repentance? It seems to me the wicked's final outcome will not be decided upon an ignorance of the Gospel, but the result of a wilfull rejection of it.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:25 am
by _Homer
Bob wrote:
When I was "brought" to Christ, it was not out of a fear of going to "hell".
However, I knew it was there.
And that is my point. Most people seem to know this, that there will be a judgement to come. Only they think they go to heaven because, on a scale, their good outweighs the bad. I believe the people of Jesus day were even more aware of a final judgement than people are today.

I am no advocate of hell-fire preaching either.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:54 am
by _STEVE7150
I believe the people of Jesus day were even more aware of a final judgement than people are today



This is just speculation as many were pagans and believed a wide diversity of things but one thing isn't speculation. Christianity was a new covenant, the old covenant was made obsolete therefore the rules of the game changed dramatically.
So what they may or may not have believed under an old covenant or pagan religion had been made obsolete and the nature of the relationship with God changed every which way to Sunday.
So the actual words of Jesus and his apostles are what needs to be scrutinized and is what matters.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:55 am
by _mdh
Bob wrote: When you mentioned in your post, the lie of the serpent, "You shall not surely die"; imo, this is the central reason to reject
Universalism as a false doctrine, or a "doctrine of demons". You have to follow out to the end of where their "truth" leads to understand its implications.
Just wondering, if the belief that says 'even in God's judgments He desires reconciliation, to restore, to heal' is from the devil, from whom is the doctrine that says "You shall not surely die, but rather burn forever"?

It is interesting to me to note that when you quote the serpent in the garden speaking to Eve, you only mention the first part of the quotation:

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The serpent was trying to deceive the woman into *not* trusting God, that God was trying to keep some good thing from her. From what you are saying, the "serpent" has changed his tactics into now teaching that God is more loving and trustworthy than traditional Christian doctrines teach.

I think you misrepresent what those of the CU position have said. No one, that I know of, has said they were out teaching that it doesn't matter whether one turn to Christ in this life.

Blessings,
Mike

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:58 am
by _STEVE7150
Interestingly the church that founded the eternal torment doctrine as far as i can see is the church losing membership at an alarming rate, that being the RCC.
So the question might be asked "Is there harm in teaching eternal torment"?

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:24 pm
by _Rick_C
Just a note regarding Homer's 'quote' from what Steve posted.

The quote comes from interaction between Steve and myself. On the TULIP thread I think Steve may have initially misunderstood what I was saying in a post (and I've posted back to him about it too).....

I just thought I to ought let y'all know.
Thanks,
Rick

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:02 pm
by _Rick_C
On topic.

I've thought about universalism along the lines of something like Pascal's Wager.

If the universalist gospel is true:
---Those who believe before they die have the all of the responsibilties and will reap the full benefits of being a Christian; in this life and the life to come. They shall be God forever at the return of Jesus. Not necessarily easy but: Happy story, start to finish.
---Those who do not believe before they die aren't required to become Christians and thus, have no Christian responsibilities or benefits in this life. However, they will be accountable for their every sin. Eventually, after an unknown time of punishment in hell they will be with God. Live for YOU: Pay the price....later (no problem): Happy ending.

If the universalist gospel is false:
---Those who believe before they die have the same as the above. Happy from page one to the last: More than well worth the sacrifice.
---Those who do not believe before they die will be punished in hell and will never ever be with God. Live however you please and do anything you want but: How very a tragically sad ending story....

I'm not a wagerin' man.
But if I was, I'd put my bottom dollar (and every red cent) on:
Become a Christian before you die.

And, in my opinion, even to the convinced universalist; I personally wouldn't recommend that anyone should tell unbelievers they can bet on making it to heaven or to be with God without becoming a Christian. No one in the Bible ever did it, so I'd very strongly advise against it, if I were you....

As Homer posted, maybe it would be best to keep an "esoteric universalist secret" till after people believe. Then, I'd find me another church, making a new door on my way out!

imnsho's,
Rick

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:33 pm
by _Rae
So really, the main issue for you guys that are not Universalists is not the doctrine of Universalism in and of itself, but the possibility that unbelievers could grab hold of the doctrine and use it as an excuse to not come to Jesus. Am I reading you guys correctly?