 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2004 2:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | Ok. Here's a more practical question?
Is a Christian being a universalist a dealbreaker for Christian fellowship, in your opinion?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
Is a Christian being a universalist a dealbreaker for Christian leadership, in your opinion?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
Please be as thorough and thoughtful with answers as possible. I'm really interested.
I'd like to keep something in mind. As I'm understanding it, the idea of universal reconciliation need NOT contradict any of the essential dogmas of the Christian faith (ie deity and humanity of Jesus, one God, etc). At best, a belief in universalism would be considered a theological error on a NON-ESSENTIAL doctrine within Christianity. Sooooo... | | Back to Top | | |
 |
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/20/2004 4:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BJS
Spen said:quote:
I am not speaking of "searching for the truth" but of one who would teach/confess something as true, say universalism. The whole world changes. If this happened in our fellowshipping I think that it would be irresponsible of me not to oppose the teaching.
Would you oppose the teaching of universalism, or that it is being taught as an absolute certainty? Because if the former, then I wonder how that would be any less of an offense to this principle you seem to be applying. This principle, as I understand it, is that we are allowed to speak of "searching for the truth" but cannot teach something "as true." As such, if you taught that universalism was certainly false, then you are make a statement of absolute certainty that should not be made. Am I getting you right here?
Brett,
Good point. If I taught that universalism was certainly false just because I believed it was false, I would be leaning on my own authority. If I taught that I believed universalism to be certainly false because I believed that the Bible declares it to be certainly false - this is different and, I believe, more accurate. There is a certain amount of fallibility in the second statement. I am looking to the Bible as the authority but - my understanding of the Bible may be defective. In sympathy to Meph, I do think there are passages that seem vague regarding damnation. In seeking the truth we attempt to understand them in context with the whole counsel of God.
I do think that there is a context where teaching universalism is as much an attack on the gospel as teaching a superlapsarian hyper-calvinism. They can both lead to fatalism and minimize the responsibility we all have to hear and obey the commands of God and be reconciled to Him in the gospel. I fail to find one side better or less dangerous than the other.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the answers, people.
I dig where everyone's coming from. I'm been doing some discussions with others...and I thinking what I'm about to say would be a good eschatology statement that EVERYONE could agree with. I would say that we could all be CERTAIN (as much as faith can be) on the following...
God is love. In the end, God will be victorious over all of God's enemies. Everying aligned with the Kingdom of God will exist in God's presence and love. Everything that is not aligned with the Kingdom of God will be annihilated. And everything that can be possibly be salvaged by God will be. But in the end, God will be all-in-all.
This tells the CENTRAL TRUTHS about what will be...but leaves other questions up in the air...like WHAT or WHO can possibly be salvaged by God. What's interesting is that you could hold to eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, or universalism...and agree with it.
Now, when we start having "interesting fireside chats" about consistency and plausibility...THEN we can get into those questions. 
--------------
Selah (emphasis mine):
quote:
As with all theological opinions, it's best to walk carefully. Explicit scripture regarding God as love is stronger ground. Painting a clear picture of God (that desires relationship filled with that love) is primary for leadership because a person in that kind of relationship with God will never meet up with the reality of eternal torment...if it exists.
I dig this.
------------------
Selah:
quote:
Would I leave a church where eternal torment was preached? Yes. I'm sure of that. done it.
I guess this is just an odd subject in my mind. I want so much to believe in universal salvation, but scripture (mainly the idea of repenting, Jesus' teachings on hell, and the same use of the word eternal for eternal life and damnation) seem to point toward something else. When I don't have a theological conclusion for something, I think about doing life with one or the other in mind and the practical fruit that follows...
In this case, the best I can say is that I've seen the eternal torment view do WAY more harm then good when preached in teh church. The fear based tactics based on this view (in order to move people toward God) seem to backfire continually --which (at least to me) shows how they are directly opposed to Jesus' idea of evangelism in John 17. Furthermore, if perfect love casts out fear, how can using fear move anyone toward perfect love (God)?
THIS is a concern. Talbott spends a good amount of his book looking at the effects of the belief in an ETERNAL HELL in the history of Christianity. Just as you indicate, it gets REALLY problematic. From Jonathon Edwards' dang-near-sadistic "Sinners in the Hands of a Angry God" to John Calvin's Geneva. What I believe we have to understand is that a messed up doctrine of hell can have PRACTICAL outworkings that can be counteractive effect on living a life of love. But for that matter, so can a messed up conception of universalism that paints God as a big sentimental Santa Claus.
In my growing opinion, a more balanced idea of universalism that deals with both God's unconditional love and intent for everyone's salvation...AND...the all-too-real threat of divine punishment and judgement can help some people out. I believe it can maintain consistency with the idea of God being love and God's ultimate telos for Creation being LOVE...AS WELL AS...keeping the need for serious spiritual growth, accountability, and evangelism in our discipleship.
---------------------
Spenlake:
quote:
I do think that there is a context where teaching universalism is as much an attack on the gospel as teaching a superlapsarian hyper-calvinism. They can both lead to fatalism and minimize the responsibility we all have to hear and obey the commands of God and be reconciled to Him in the gospel. I fail to find one side better or less dangerous than the other.
I would definitely agree with this, depending on what form of universalism was being taught as a possibility...and what emphases were being exaggerated. This would necessitate those teaching to be VERY DILIGENT in what they do.
-----
So...
What do y'all think of the eschatology statement:
God is love. In the end, God will be victorious over all of God's enemies. Everything aligned with the Kingdom of God will exist in God's presence and love. Everything that is not aligned with the Kingdom of God will be annihilated. Everything that can be possibly be salvaged by God will be. But in the end, God will be all-in-all. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 4:59 AM (GMT -6) | | POW, I'm VERY interested in getting your perspective. Holla.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 12/20/2004 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | I like that statement, Meph.
For my two cents, I happen to like the picture of the afterlife painted by CS Lewis in The Great Divorce. Consistent with my strong belief in LFW, I think damnation is chosen by us, not God. That is, as Lewis writes, hell is a place "locked from the inside." For that reason, I'm not a universalist. I hope for universalism, but I think if mankind has free will, some will always choose against God, and God will allow them their choice.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/20/2004 7:01 AM (GMT -6) | | I haven't read your stuff on universalism on the other thread yet, though Tom had told me some time ago that Greg and The Eternal One were throwing around the idea of universalistic salvation.
As I said to Tom, I'll say here. There is a history of universalism in the Church (though it was never held by a majority of Christians) so this should not be surprising that some Christians will hold to this view. If anything, it should tell us more about our own psychological makeup when it comes to our theological sacred cows (again, can someone say, "Cognitive dissonance?").
Meph Man points out that which is central. That which we can be CERTAIN about. The biblical drama. Creation, fall, redemption and then renewal. All else is secondary. Even such doctrines as the Trinity. God COULD be more than one and three, but we are only cognizant of one and three. Sometimes we rely so much on these basic assumptions to PROVE other points (or theological sacred cows)that we hold on to sooo tenaciously. Get over it. 
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 12/20/2004 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | .
Well said.
BJS wrote: quote:
I hope for universalism, but I think if mankind has free will, some will always choose against God, and God will allow them their choice.
Peace & blessings,
<><
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/20/2004 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Not a dealbreker for me, at least not as YOU have argued it.
But there are many versions of universalism that would be problematic, like those that are NOT Christ-centered.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/20/2004 9:45 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm trying to figure out exactly what y'all mean as universalism here. If you're talking about the universalism which Talbott describes in his website (that God's love and God's judgment, i.e. having created a Sheol and Gehenna for those who refuse to repent and follow Him, are incompatible), then here's my 2c.  (and of course, let me know if I'm mistaken... I'm still figuring things out )
Talbott's claim seems to be this:
1. God is all-loving, wants the best for us, thus...
2. God wants us to be happy, and heaven's the place where we'll be ultimately happy.
3. If there is one person who has to go to hell, we'll be sad for that person--we'll know about that person's torment. We can't be happy.
4. God could erase our memory of that person, but then that wouldn't be a loving thing to do, nor would sending a person to sheol or gehenna. This would contradict God's nature.
5. Therefore, there must not really be a hell... everyone will go to heaven somehow.
(no I'm not a philosopher or a rhetorician or logician, so I just wrote this the best I can, so please don't pick apart the exact words I've used, but correct me if my understanding of Talbott's universalism is wrong)
If everyone somehow goes to heaven, even though they reject God's grace, then it seems that Universalism is the close neighbor to pluralism (choose your path, eh. You'll get there somehow.) This all seems to directly oppose what Christianity teaches. So...
quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Is a Christian being a universalist a dealbreaker for Christian fellowship, in your opinion?
If you mean that we should just "excommunicate" them from the church on the spot... definitely no. But they do need to be informed that the premises behind universalism are fatally flawed, because if you follow that thinking all the way through, then people will see no reason for repentence and forgiveness... it's "fatally" flawed because, as we know, if one does not practice repentence and receive forgiveness, then that person cannot enter into God's presence (things are true or false regardless of how we feel about it). They should not be kicked out of fellowship because of their misunderstanding, but shown truth in love.
quote:
Is a Christian being a universalist a dealbreaker for Christian leadership, in your opinion?
(I'm kinda unsure what you mean by "dealbreaker") Should their leadership post be taken away from them? Yes, because fundamentally they seem to accept a form of plualism, which is not Christianity. In leadership, they would be in a position to much more easily lead people astray... if people stop realizing the ultimate importance of Christ, thus cease in repenting and following Christ, this has dire consequenses.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the focus should be on escaping punishment, but indeed should be more on the positive...God's grace and love. But I definitely do not think we should ignore an important part of the gospel just because it doesn't feel good.quote:
At best, a belief in universalism would be considered a theological error on a NON-ESSENTIAL doctrine within Christianity. Sooooo...
Just wondering for your input, how would it be non-essential?
"Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows." - C.S.Lewis, The Great Divorce | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/20/2004 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | How could it not be a "deal-breaker" if the universalist (like, for instance, Carlton Pearson) is openly saying that everybody's going to heaven whether they want to or not, and whether one follows Christianity or not is really not crucial to their eternal salvation?!?
My own brother is a universalist, and no, I don't consider him a Christian any longer, and neither does he--precisely because of the necessary logical implications of the "all roads lead to God" belief that universalism implies.
If truth doesn't matter (and I realize relativistic views are widespread among lots of people who post here), then ANYTHING goes, friends! Making disciples of all nations is superflous, for "all roads lead to God." Living a holy life is unnecessary, for "all roads lead to God." Being a Christian really makes no ultimate difference at all, for "all roads lead to God." One may as well say they are working out their salvation by continuing in sin, that grace may abound. (God forbid!)
How can universalism NOT be a "deal buster?!?!"
HELLO!!! Is there's anybody in there?!?!?
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/20/2004 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BJS
Well, again, as Tom already pointed out, it depends upon what brand of universalism we are talking about.
The "brand" of universalism doesn't seem to make any difference with regard to the end result. It is not clear to me how the view Meph has been discussing is substantively different in any way from classical universalism. Classical universalism has always taught that it was Christ whose redemption was inescapable somehow. And most of the universalist views I have studied and/or heard from universalists themselves have affirmed a belief in hell, just not an eternal hell (hell as purgatory rather than punitive). What's so different about the view Meph has been discussing?
(Seriously, I am tapped out on buying books for the next several weeks, so I would sincerely appreciate a condensed version, if anyone would be willing).
"It may be true for you, but that doesn't mean it's true for me."
"All religions basically teach the same thing."
1 John 4:6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
I thank God for the Spirit of truth, Who guides us into all truth!
Happy Hanukah,
John
Oh, and P.S.: Sure, universalists can be nice people. Since when did being nice have anything to do with being right with God? In today's postmodern, relativistic culture, either stated or implied universalism of some form or other is pretty much "orthodoxy."
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/20/2004 12:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Not a dealbreker for me, at least not as YOU have argued it.
But there are many versions of universalism that would be problematic, like those that are NOT Christ-centered.
Tom
Right. Is heresay not holding to the "essentials," or would it be more in line with "distorting the story," i.e. biblical drama. Some universalistic views may go way out whacked. By far, from what I have read of what Meph Man has said? "Nuh ahhhh."
Frankly, I wonder, if there could be a paradigm shift even with what Meph Man is offering.
For example, as you know, Meph has staked a lot on "character solidification." Now of course, this makes for good "fireside chats concerning consistency and plausibility."
However, just as we have amillennial, premillennial, historic views, with corresponding areas of consistency and plausibility within each view, I like what Grenz has done in terms of borrowing from each to bring out biblical truth without being definitive on each view (all of them teach something important for an understanding of eschatology). Could not arguing about such things as the consistency and plausibility of each view, i.e. universalism, exclusivism, be slightly narrow in scope? Could we not borrow from what their main concerns are and reach some sort of "final verdict" as to what they can contribute to eschatology?
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 12:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Interesting. VERY interesting.
Violin:
quote:
If everyone somehow goes to heaven, even though they reject God's grace, then it seems that Universalism is the close neighbor to pluralism (choose your path, eh. You'll get there somehow.) This all seems to directly oppose what Christianity teaches.
This is definitely not the universalism that Talbott espouses in his book...and definitely not the universalism that I've been discussing in the threads. Which says that salvation is ONLY made available through the trinitarian work of Father, Son, and Spirit. There is no relativization of Christ at all. One thing that we've brought out a couple of times here: there ARE different versions of universalism. Even the most staunch of opponents of the doctrine will note this. And that there are some versions that are completely in line with the non-negotiables of the Christian faith.
And truth be told, the universalism that I've been describing here has absolutely nothing to do with pluralism (ie all ways equally lead to God). Nothing whatsoever. It affirms the one UNIQUE Incarnate Word and His work.
------------------------------------
JEE:
quote:
How could it not be a "deal-breaker" if the universalist (like, for instance, Carlton Pearson) is openly saying that everybody's going to heaven whether they want to or not, and whether one follows Christianity or not is really not crucial to their eternal salvation.
1) No one here is saying that "all roads lead to God" in the sense of religious pluralism. The ONLY way to God is by the ChristWork.
2) Universalism comes in different FORMS. Some forms deny all types of Christian non-negotiables (like the deity of Christ). The one that Talbott, Jan Bonda [another Christian universalist], and I are advocating do not do this.
Y'all see this, right?
--------
Particular forms of universalism can, in good conscience, align with the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, as well as the Athanasian Creed [where it speaks of ETERNAL fire]. (3 Ecumenical Creeds)
Whoops. Forgot the Chalcedonean Creed, too.
Wherein does being a Christian universalist as such NECESSARILY assault the essential dogmas of the Church??
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
quote:
Could not arguing about such things as the consistency and plausibility of each view, i.e. universalism, exclusivism, be slightly narrow in scope? Could we not borrow from what their main concerns are and reach some sort of "final verdict" as to what they can contribute to eschatology?
VERY good questions. I think so! | | Back to Top | | |
| 77 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:37 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|