Universalism

[praise_yeshua]

One of the topic that is banned from many Calvinist forums today is "Universalism".

I personally believe that is a mistake. I know Christians that are least sympathetic to annihilationism. Which is very close to the teachings of Universalism. I also personally believe that the reason Universalism is often banned in these forums is because of just how closely Calvinism resembles Universalism.

What are you thoughts on the subject? I have said before that I am sympathetic to desire to believe in both Universalism and Annihilationism. I do believe some views of the Atonement ultimately lead to "flavors" of both. Not criticising at all. Just discussing.

I would believe in both Universalism and Annihilationism if it were not for a few Scriptures such as

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

 

[Dizerner]

Wishful thinking.

Your point about Calvinism's connection to Universalism is well taken: if God eliminates our free will, why not eliminate everyone's.

 

[civic]

One of the topic that is banned from many Calvinist forums today is "Universalism".

I personally believe that is a mistake. I know Christians that are least sympathetic to annihilationism. Which is very close to the teachings of Universalism. I also personally believe that the reason Universalism is often banned in these forums is because of just how closely Calvinism resembles Universalism.

What are you thoughts on the subject? I have said before that I am sympathetic to desire to believe in both Universalism and Annihilationism. I do believe some views of the Atonement ultimately lead to "flavors" of both. Not criticising at all. Just discussing.

I would believe in both Universalism and Annihilationism if it were not for a few Scriptures such as

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

You nailed it !!!

 

[civic]

Wishful thinking.

Your point about Calvinism's connection to Universalism is well taken: if God eliminates our free will, why not eliminate everyone's.

Yep

 

[brightfame52]

Universalism and arminanism are closely related in my opinion because both deny the Sovereignty of God in Election, universalism just does it differently, but both seek to eliminate Gods Sovereign Election to Salvation, which denotes a Sovereign Election to damnation.

 

[Dizerner]

Universalism and arminanism are closely related in my opinion because both deny the Sovereignty of God in Election, universalism just does it differently, but both seek to eliminate Gods Sovereign Election to Salvation, which denotes a Sovereign Election to damnation.

There are people who believe in free will and universalism... less of them.

Basically, their idea is that with a enough persuasive force, everyone will choose God eventually, some will just take a really long time.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Universalism and arminanism are closely related in my opinion because both deny the Sovereignty of God in Election, universalism just does it differently, but both seek to eliminate Gods Sovereign Election to Salvation, which denotes a Sovereign Election to damnation.

Wouldn't a Calvinist view of Sovereignty naturally progress to include ALL things working together for ALL? I see Universalism as "sorta" a version of Calvinism on steroids.

I do believe that some forums ban the discussion because it is impossible to have a argument with Universalist when it comes to the efficacy of the Atonement. They always win....

 

[e v e]

One of the topic that is banned from many Calvinist forums today is "Universalism".

I personally believe that is a mistake. I know Christians that are least sympathetic to annihilationism. Which is very close to the teachings of Universalism. I also personally believe that the reason Universalism is often banned in these forums is because of just how closely Calvinism resembles Universalism.

What are you thoughts on the subject? I have said before that I am sympathetic to desire to believe in both Universalism and Annihilationism. I do believe some views of the Atonement ultimately lead to "flavors" of both. Not criticising at all. Just discussing.

I would believe in both Universalism and Annihilationism if it were not for a few Scriptures such as

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

what do you understand by terms annihilationism and universalism.

 

[Dizerner]

Annihilationism means there's no hell, God just poofs the unsaved out of existence.

Universalism means everyone is saved and no one goes to hell, often not even Satan.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Annihilationism means there's no hell, God just poofs the unsaved out of existence.

Universalism means everyone is saved and no one goes to hell, often not even Satan.

Correct. I do believe there are Annihilationists that believe that there is possibly a short stent in hell that consumes the wicked.

 

[AaronH]

Annihilationism means there's no hell, God just poofs the unsaved out of existence.

Universalism means everyone is saved and no one goes to hell, often not even Satan.

No Sir, that is not correct of the majority in either camp.

Most Annihilationists believe that you are punished in hell according to your deeds. Essentially, the more evil you are the longer your time in hell before your demise.

Christian Universalists all believe in hell. They just don't believe people have to stay there for infinity. Some occupants of hell are more stubborn than others and require a longer time there. Decades, centuries, perhaps millennia, but all eventually come to understand that God is what they are ultimately searching for.

 

[Dizerner]

No Sir, that is not correct of the majority in either camp

Yeah, okay, hell is not something I would see as temporary in my view so I would not use that word for a temporary punishment.

 

[AaronH]

Yeah, okay, hell is not something I would see as temporary in my view so I would not use that word for a temporary punishment.

Not sure what to make of that honestly. Seems like an unnecessary muddying of the waters.

 

[Dizerner]

Not sure what to make of that honestly. Seems like an unnecessary muddying of the waters.

Ever heard someone going through a hard time say, "Man, I went through hell."

They didn't go through hell.

And it waters down and cheapens the real concept of what the wrath of God is.

So I don't see me as the one "muddying" the waters of Scripture.

 

[AaronH]

Ever heard someone going through a hard time say, "Man, I went through hell."

They didn't go through hell.

And it waters down and cheapens the real concept of what the wrath of God is.

So I don't see me as the one "muddying" the waters of Scripture.

I don't know. Something seems circular about your rationale. You're assuming the definition of hell, but that's really what the debate between the three views is all about.

The Universalist could use the same tactic. "I believe hell is for correction and purification. You believe something else, therefore you don't really believe hell."

 

[brightfame52]

I don't know. Something seems circular about your rationale. You're assuming the definition of hell, but that's really what the debate between the three views is all about.

The Universalist could use the same tactic. "I believe hell is for correction and purification. You believe something else, therefore you don't really believe hell."

If a universalist believes that hell is used for correction and purification, then it means it doesnt believe Christs death purified them from sin. Heb 1:3

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had* by himself purged* our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Titus 2:14
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

 

[Dizerner]

I don't know. Something seems circular about your rationale. You're assuming the definition of hell, but that's really what the debate between the three views is all about.

The Universalist could use the same tactic. "I believe hell is for correction and purification. You believe something else, therefore you don't really believe hell."

All arguments are inherently circular in the end, there is no "non-circular" argument. Logic has to reference itself so it can't help but be paradoxical.

What happens here though is terminology hi-jacking. For example, instead of Calvinists arguing against free will, they start to redefine free will.

Sure, we can switch over to ECT just like Calvinists force the use of LFW and EDD, even though many then complain about using it.

I never meant to deny in some sense hell as I understand was a presupposition, so in that way nothing I said was denying circularity.

 

[AaronH]

All arguments are inherently circular in the end, there is no "non-circular" argument. Logic has to reference itself so it can't help but be paradoxical.

What happens here though is terminology hi-jacking. For example, instead of Calvinists arguing against free will, they start to redefine free will.

Sure, we can switch over to ECT just like Calvinists force the use of LFW and EDD, even though many then complain about using it.

I never meant to deny in some sense hell as I understand was a presupposition, so in that way nothing I said was denying circularity.

However you slice this, when you say "universalism teaches no one goes to hell" it has the effect of deceiving the casual reader. The most natural interpretation of it is "universalists teach that all go straight to heaven after death," not "he's not denying post-mortem punishment, he just has an exclusive definition of hell."

Several church fathers (whose native language was the same Greek the NT was written in) believed universalism, while the rest believed that universalism was a non-heretical understanding of scripture. For us non-Greek speaking to millennia later deny them (and thus all Christian universalists) the right to use the term hell in accord with their interpretation is hardly called for.

 

[Dizerner]

However you slice this, when you say "universalism teaches no one goes to hell" it has the effect of deceiving the casual reader. The most natural interpretation of it is "universalists teach that all go straight to heaven after death," not "he's not denying post-mortem punishment, he just has an exclusive definition of hell."

There's a different term you could use for such a thing. I mean, I think even saints will receive chastening in heaven, and it will hurt.

Several church fathers (whose native language was the same Greek the NT was written in) believed universalism, while the rest believed that universalism was a non-heretical understanding of scripture.

Yes, it's true. I don't think we can assume the church visible (that which is recorded), is somehow necessarily the true church. The historical ECFs had a ton of aberrant beliefs and I don't really greatly respect their discernment.

For us non-Greek speaking to millennia later deny them (and thus all Christian universalists) the right to use the term hell in accord with their interpretation is hardly called for.

Well, Calvinists would use the same type of argument, but consider that terminology hi-jacking seems dishonest and unnecessary. Call it divine chastening if you will, people will understand that. The fact is, under UR it's true no one really goes to a classical understanding of hell.

 

[AaronH]

Well, Calvinists would use the same type of argument, but consider that terminology hi-jacking seems dishonest and unnecessary. Call it divine chastening if you will, people will understand that. The fact is, under UR it's true no one really goes to a classical understanding of hell.

I’ll stick with the term hell, but thanks. Let me know when you’ve managed to change the world’s nomenclature on hell. In the meantime I will respect annihilationists and universal reconciliationists enough to use the terminology that both they and many of the church fathers did.