The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Why I am No Longer A Universalist (Part 1)

I see your Leeroy ref, Randy… :mrgreen:

Yes, indeed. I am a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is nothing if not Trinitarian. When I listen to or read the various liturgies of the Church, I am struck by how obviously universalistic they are. You think the Bible is universalistic? Well, you’re right, but even more so the liturgy, which dials way down the judgment stuff and dials way up the glad and glorious stuff.

I can’t help but wonder how my fellow Orthodox who are not universalists do it. They have to ignore or at least sideline huge chunks of the liturgy. (“That’s hyperbole. Oh, that isn’t meant literally. More hyperbole. Exaggeration. Eastern exaggeration.” Etc.) Every once in a while there will be a little line somewhere that doesn’t sound universalistic, but when interpreted against the context of the entire liturgy, it obviously becomes a warning against sin.

One example of the general sort of thing Jason is getting at: Today is the feast of Theophany (the baptism of Christ). It is the second most important day on the Eastern Orthodox Church calendar (with Pascha [Easter] being the first). The Church teaches that, because Jesus is God the Son incarnate, when He descended into the baptismal waters, He changed the waters. He energized them. He changed the nature of the waters, so that the waters deify us when we descend into them in Baptism. (In short, Jesus changed the waters. The waters didn’t change Him. The waters change us, but we don’t change the waters.) The liturgy proclaims that Christ thus saved all of creation, and therefore He especially saved all of humanity. If He wasn’t God, His Baptism would not have accomplished any of this. Therefore, if an Orthodox does not believe that Christ saves the entire cosmos (and, with it, all mankind), then that is an implicit denial of Christ’s deity. Christ would be (at best) a sort of demi-god or semi-god who kinda sorta saved some people and some things. This of course would obliterate the dogma of the Trinity.

Dave, obviously no he wasn’t trying “to make a case for the purported trinity” (partly because he doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit there), he was trying to make a case for being charitable toward people who insist on not eating meat which had been sacrificed to idols. Along the way he affirms idols have no power and that also avoiding idolatry is important compared to worshiping the one God (specifically in reference to the shema) instead of any lesser lords or gods.

But people can still come along afterward and notice the implications of how he imports the “one lord Jesus Christ” into a typical affirmation of the absolute unique transcendence of the one God over all lesser lords and gods.

To reply to such inferences by observing that Paul’s purpose wasn’t to make an argument for the trinity, is trivially irrelevant. How he treats Jesus in making his actual argument is however relevant to any questions of whether we should be religiously worshiping lesser lords or gods (absolutely not), whether we should be religiously worshiping Jesus on par with God the Father (yes), and whether Jesus is a lesser lord or god than God the Father (no).

That imo is a faulty line of reasoning, (most basically, a non-sequitur) but is also alas the type of thing I see in many ‘trinitarian’ arguments.
I do worship God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Other than that, verbal formulations that ask for metaphysical commitments just are NOT convincing. Or trivially irrelevant.

But you know, if UR really is true, then God has done a really bad job of communicating it. I mean really bad.

I think the Bible clearly teaches universalism. This is partially obscured by preposterous translations (such as the howler of replacing “Valley of Hinnom” [which is a literal valley just outside of Jerusalem] with “Hell”).

Add to that the fact that most people who believe that the Bible contains God’s written word can’t be bothered to read it, much less study it. Who needs to read the Bible when everybody already “knows” that some people go to Hell?

Add to that the vindictiveness and spite all too many of us have in our hearts, making the doctrine of Hell a sweet one.

Etc.

I’m not surprised at all that so many people believe in Hell.

1 Like

That was well put. :smiley:

Great op and im hearing where your coming from,as im starting to doubt ur,my spirit since turning to ur has been unsettled.There is so much that can be said about this and i am still searching for answers (although i might never get there).

sorry, but my spirit is unsettled at the thought of precious human beings lost in misery, rebellion and sin forever…not at the thought that maybe, just maybe, God really is big enough and great enough to redeem all His creation.

2 Likes

agreed about the vindictiveness etc …I think some people really wish to believe in eternal torment…after all, ‘somebody’s gotta pay’, right ? ( I’m being sarcastic, hehe)…so yeh, for some people ‘eternal torment’ is a sweet deal…yup.

1 Like

well, if eternal conscious torment is true, God has done a really bad job of communicating it. I mean really bad.

Agreed, Neil. On top of that, look at the different consequences:

  1. SUPPOSING UNIVERSALISM IS TRUE AND THAT GOD DID A BAD JOB COMMUNICATING IT: Then lots of people will get a pleasant surprise after they die. I don’t see a problem with that.

but…

  1. SUPPOSING EVERLASTING HELL IS TRUE AND THAT GOD DID A BAD JOB COMMUNICATING IT: Then lots of people will end up in Hell precisely because of God bungling His message. That would be a huge problem.

Hi Geoffrey
Why would lots of people end up in hell precisely because they mistakenly thought UR was true? I don’t understand.

good point…yup !

If I had a nickel for every person I’ve run into who thought Christian universalists were going to go to everlasting Hell because of the soul-destroying heresy of universalism… Well, I’d call off work. :slight_smile:

yep…true.

I appreciate your honesty and since I do not believe debate to be of any benefit, I will not try to counter anything you said. I do not wish to invalidate your genuine response to the indisputable stupidity that sometimes shows up in our conversations.

I agree, as it has been my experience also, that I see many pass through UR and become something that looks nothing like even fringe Christianity. I’ve been a “church-person” most of my life and have lived long enough to see patterns which help to shed light on certain behaviors.

One simple truth is that it is that often WE, as adherents to an ultimate salvation model, do not teach or model a sober and godly walk. We’re so glad that we get to “go to heaven”, that we fail to teach that such a thing has NEVER been God’s objective. Like with the primitive church, there is a lack of mature teachers in this revelation of God’s perfect and inclusive work. We must not only be patient in waiting for this to come about, but also lend ourselves to become those mature teacher of this more perfect way.

Additionally, those whose ungrounded trajectories overshoot sound doctrine and practice, were never of the faith. They were passing through. It is evident in that their new dogmas are to the exclusion of Christ. This generous doctrine of grace is like great wealth. Money doesn’t change people, contrary to what poor people say. Money exposes and magnifies that which was already in one’s heart. This great grace and its fruit of liberty are the same in nature. Those people were trouble in the prior churches, probably so also in their families and jobs. Anarchists at heart, whether against the laws of men or of God.

I understand your concerns. I simply disagree with the process by which you have drawn your conclusion. We do need order. We are so “burned” by prior religious contact and institutions, that I believe we recoil past reason and even shun orderliness and spiritual government. That is our great error. But though we do not know yet how to administer and apply this great news of God’s saving work in Christ, we cannot lay it to the blame of the revelation, which is to say that we also blame the Revealer. Rather, we should pray that the Lord send laborers worthy of the work.

But I trust that God has ordered your steps, even if that means you will circle back through this great message some day. If you, in full clarity of conscience, must take this step, do so in all sincerity, but I ask you to consider that perhaps you see the problems because you’ve been called to play a part in solving them.

God bless!

Hmmm… Interesting that you’re not a univeralist anymore but you still rightfully hold to a position held by L. Ray Smith, who was a Binitarian universalist. I think a case can be made for an “Open-Expanding Family” model of the Trinity (though I prefer the term Godhead) where grammatically/linguistically (according to Hebrew/Aramaic), positionally, and even through minority Eastern (particularly Syriac) patristic precedent (with occasional references to Old and New Testament Apocryphal/Psuedapigraphal works – i.e. the Gospel of the Hebrews), you’ll find an interpretation of the Holy Spirit, the Ruach HaKodesh, the Comforter as being the Divine Feminine, the Motherly role within Godself and Co-Sustainer of all creation. The Holy Spirit’s throne is the temple of the believer. The following link more or less describes what I currently believe about Elohim-Theon. Peace, brother:

http://www.nccg.org/godhead.html

Hello Daniel

I have just re-joined after a number of years away and so have only just read your post. This is the first time I’ve come across anyone who believed in universalism and then rejected it.

At first, I was simply astonished, but on thinking further, I wondered what you meant by “universalism”. If it’s a question of whether all humans (perhaps even only those who have lived since Jesus’s death and resurrection) somehow avoid “hell”, and “go to heaven” (both unbiblical concepts) then I can see there could be some question. Is that what you mean by the word?

If, on the other hand, you perceive (as I do) that God is faithful to every part of the creation without exception, across all time and space; that since he became a man he is inextricably entangled with the creation and it is therefore impossible that he could ever abandon any of it; and that God as that man on a cross poured his life freely and indiscriminately into the creation; and that God will heal and reconcile not only all humans to himself and each other but all parts or members of the creation - animals, stars, trees, microbes, extraterrestial life, if there is any) - and give them (us) abundant life and love endlessly - well, then how can this produce anything but peace and joy?

3 Likes