Universalism

[Inevitable Droid]

I had posted what follows on another thread, only to delete it when I saw the moderator's instruction that we stop derailing the thread from its original purpose.

Unfortunately Universalism has gone out of style as a mode of Christianity, ever since the Universalists merged with the Unitarians and the two who were now one became something different from what either was originally.  Original Universalism made the most sense of any Christian modality.  Jesus died for everybody, period.  No conditions.  No strings attached.  He died, we're saved, period.  I still wouldn't believe it but at least I could view the myth as having some beauty.  Plus Universalists by definition would consider Muslims, Wiccans, and atheists to be saved already.  No need for proselytising and certainly no need for pogroms.  Some people are saved and know it; the rest are saved and don't know it; all will have a pleasant afterlife, and can live their present lives however they see fit.  Pretty unobjectionable as myths go.  I wish more Christians would take this perspective.

[Achronos]

I personally don't hold to a dogma of universalism, but I do have a friend who is pretty big on it in fact he would actually let Hitler get into Heaven before he himself does.

So we are all saved but it's how we train our nous is how well we receive God's love. It's like "I love all of you, and I cannot withold my love for you. Prepare yourselves." Depending on the individual experience creates a 'heaven' or 'hell' state of existence.

[Voter]

I'd like to accept universalism, but I don't think it's a good Biblical position.

[Inevitable Droid]

I'd like to accept universalism, but I don't think it's a good Biblical position.

Consider this, then.  Nowhere in the bible does it say or even imply that after we die we no longer can be saved by coming to faith in Jesus.  There is death and then judgment, but does the judgment occur instantly upon death or is there a time lag?  During that time lag, could coming to faith still be possible?  Such detailed questions about the afterlife don't get answered in the bible.

Universalism is the only soteriological position consistent with omnipotence, eternity, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.  If God can do anything, has forever to do it in, knows how to do it all, and wants only what is best for everyone, then universalism is a logical necessity.

[Sophus]

Are all Universalists necessarily Unitarian?

[Inevitable Droid]

Are all Universalists necessarily Unitarian?

If we're using the capital "U" and denoting a recognized denomination, then yes, the denomination is called Unitarian Universalist.  Before answering I did some googling, and initially got excited by finding two churches that called themselves simply Universalist, but further probing in both cases yielded references to Unitarian Universalism.

If we use the lower case "u" to designate individuals who employ sound logic to come to an unavoidable conclusion, and one the bible doesn't explicitly reject, then I would say there are probably universalists scattered around the world, in every denomination, quietly participating in their non-universalist communities.
 
Universalists, Deists, and atheists can all agree that neither proselytising nor pogroms nor interfering with our public schools make any sense at all.  For this reason, I wish more Christians were universalists, and I wish more of the ones who are would come out of the closet.

[Voter]

Consider this, then.  Nowhere in the bible does it say or even imply that after we die we no longer can be saved by coming to faith in Jesus.

Yes, the Bible implies that. Jesus speaks of eternal torment. The universalist position on aionios is weak. Other passages also imply it without use of aionios. Consider Lazarus and the rich man, which speaks of a fixed chasm separating the damned from the saved:
Luke 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.

There is death and then judgment, but does the judgment occur instantly upon death or is there a time lag?  During that time lag, could coming to faith still be possible?  Such detailed questions about the afterlife don't get answered in the bible.

True, which is why I said that universaliam is not a good position, rather than saying that it is an impossible position.

Universalism is the only soteriological position consistent with omnipotence, eternity, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.  If God can do anything, has forever to do it in, knows how to do it all, and wants only what is best for everyone, then universalism is a logical necessity.

The Bible doesn't portray God as omnibenevolent.

[Davin]

Consider this, then.  Nowhere in the bible does it say or even imply that after we die we no longer can be saved by coming to faith in Jesus.

Yes, the Bible implies that. Jesus speaks of eternal torment. The universalist position on aionios is weak. Other passages also imply it without use of aionios. Consider Lazarus and the rich man, which speaks of a fixed chasm separating the damned from the saved:
Luke 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.

24) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25) But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26) And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

So that also means that all one needs to do to get into heaven is to receive evil things while alive and those that receive good things in life get tormented after death. It also means that the torment isn't so bad, just need some drops of water on the tongue.

[Whitney]

Consider this, then.  Nowhere in the bible does it say or even imply that after we die we no longer can be saved by coming to faith in Jesus.  There is death and then judgment, but does the judgment occur instantly upon death or is there a time lag?  During that time lag, could coming to faith still be possible?  Such detailed questions about the afterlife don't get answered in the bible.

Seventh Day Adventists believe that during the second coming all the day shall rise and those who are saved will go to heaven while those who are not will be on earth for the tribulation and judgement day.  From my understanding, this would essentially give everyone a second chance to accept Jesus.  If I remember correctly their basis for this belief can be found somewhere in revelations if not also elsewhere.

[Inevitable Droid]

Consider this, then.  Nowhere in the bible does it say or even imply that after we die we no longer can be saved by coming to faith in Jesus.

Yes, the Bible implies that. Jesus speaks of eternal torment.

Nevertheless, perhaps some can come to faith in Jesus after death.  But that wouldn't be universalism, which of course is your point.

The Bible doesn't portray God as omnibenevolent.

More's the pity.  You know, some Christians don't consider the bible inerrant.  For example, some Lutherans, specifically the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, consider the bible inspired but not inerrant.  This enables them to set aside portions of the bible that leave us with a God of monstrous mien.  Wouldn't it be nice to have a God whose plan doesn't entail everlasting torture for billions of people?  Some Lutherans worship a God of invincible mercy.

[AnimatedDirt]

Consider this, then.  Nowhere in the bible does it say or even imply that after we die we no longer can be saved by coming to faith in Jesus.  There is death and then judgment, but does the judgment occur instantly upon death or is there a time lag?  During that time lag, could coming to faith still be possible?  Such detailed questions about the afterlife don't get answered in the bible.

Seventh Day Adventists believe that during the second coming all the day shall rise and those who are saved will go to heaven while those who are not will be on earth for the tribulation and judgement day.  From my understanding, this would essentially give everyone a second chance to accept Jesus.  If I remember correctly their basis for this belief can be found somewhere in revelations if not also elsewhere.

Not exactly correct, Whitney.

Just for clarification, as an SDA myself, SDA's believe the tribulation will come first.  All that are alive will go through the tribulation... no person will be "raptured" away prior to the 2nd coming which marks the end of the Tribulation.  The 2nd coming is the first resurrection.  It's a sort of Judgement Day, but Judgment Day, while for the believer is the day one confesses to Christ and puts faith in Him (All will still go "through" judgment, but for those that believe, they are judged through Christ's perfect life, and not their own so they are declared righteous), for the unbeliever, Judgment Day is after the 1000 years (where Satan is alone on this earth with nothing to do) when all the dead are raised up at the 2nd resurrection (the unbelievers) and they are judged according to their own deeds (not covered with Christ's righteousness) and since their deeds/works are found with sin (their own), they are judged to hell until dead in the flames.  SDAs do not believe in an eternal torment.  Hell exists only for the amount of time it takes to burn everything up for eternity...in other words, the fires of hell annihilate the unbeliever into non-existence.  There is no pain beyond death.  This is the second death which is eternal.  (Rev. 20)

...in a nutshell.

What you are confusing is what's called commonly in religious circles as the Pre-tribulation Rapture which basically says that the "church" (these people that hold this belief separate the "church" and Jews with no real basis to do so IMHO) will be protected from the tribulation (which is true, but not apart from it - John 17:15 Christ's words allude to this) and "raptured" home to return again (at the 2nd coming)... lots of back and forth in that belief...to again return to heaven.  In this thinking, you are right that they believe there is a second chance, sadly though, if true then it is only for those that are alive.   It is not, however, an Adventist belief.  

After death there is no second chance.

This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead.  Anyone who is among the living has hope--even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!  For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.  Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.

[Whitney]

Thanks for clearing that up...all I know about Adventists is from dating a follower in high school which meant attending the church for about a year.  I didn't really feel comfortable participating (conflicted with my liberal christian views) so I ran the sound board so I could sit in the back.  So...it's not surprising I didn't quite get it right...esp since my bf of the time was my main source for understanding his views and I kinda quit asking asking him when he told me dinosaurs were fake (amazing that puppy love allowed me to agree to disagree on that one!).

[Inevitable Droid]

You know, some Christians don't consider the bible inerrant.

I just thought I'd add that taking portions of the bible as errant is of course arbitrary, but there is always a dimension of arbitrary choice to faith.  Taking the bible as true while taking the Quran, the Vedas, the Tao Teh Ching, and the Popol Vuh as all false is arbitrary.  One could as easily take some portions of the bible as true while discarding other portions as false.  Why not choose the portions of the bible that present a God of unconditional love and invincible mercy?

[Voter]

More's the pity.  You know, some Christians don't consider the bible inerrant.

Lots don't, but that's not a good position either.

For example, some Lutherans, specifically the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, consider the bible inspired but not inerrant.

Inspired by whom? Or, what's the difference? I believe the Bible (the autographs, actually) is inerrant because it is inspired by God.

This enables them to set aside portions of the bible that leave us with a God of monstrous mien.  Wouldn't it be nice to have a God whose plan doesn't entail everlasting torture for billions of people?  Some Lutherans worship a God of invincible mercy.

Yes, it would be nice. That's why I said at the beginning that I'd like to believe it. But, it's not a good Biblical position.

[Sophus]

If we're using the capital "U" and denoting a recognized denomination, then yes, the denomination is called Unitarian Universalist.  Before answering I did some googling, and initially got excited by finding two churches that called themselves simply Universalist, but further probing in both cases yielded references to Unitarian Universalism.

If we use the lower case "u" to designate individuals who employ sound logic to come to an unavoidable conclusion, and one the bible doesn't explicitly reject, then I would say there are probably universalists scattered around the world, in every denomination, quietly participating in their non-universalist communities.

I suppose that would imply that not all Universalists are therefore unitarians in the sense of one of its definitions' synonym, nontrinitarianism?

Universalism is the only soteriological position consistent with omnipotence, eternity, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. If God can do anything, has forever to do it in, knows how to do it all, and wants only what is best for everyone, then universalism is a logical necessity.

While I share your wish for more Christians to slide into Universalism, I will actually play Devil's Advocate to this argument, simply because....

How does omnipotence work into this God's failure to communicate his word? If he was responsible for having the Bible partially "God-breathed", what kept him from conveying the full message with consistency? Although I suppose the same could be argued of the more conservative Yahweh who supposedly sent Jesus to "change the ways" of the nasty Old Testament, neither is compatible with omnipotence.