The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Universalism not supported in church history

In response to auggybendoggy: I think people want to know if the early church supported this or that doctrine because of the concept that things were most pure when closest to Jesus’ teaching. It’s assumed that it must be easier to alter, add to, or misinterpret things the farther you get away from the source. This makes sense when we remember that there are some people who go even farther by claiming that Paul made things up and that they only believe what Jesus said (the assumption being that there is a difference-I don’t agree).

Anyway, while I tend to agree that support in the early church has weight, the Bible does present a sort of “progressive revelation” concept which would make the early church argument less important. For example, God didn’t fill Adam and Eve in on the whole deal of what He was doing on the Earth, nor did He do so with Abraham or Moses etc. God gradually revealed his will. The disciples are beautiful examples too. They clearly didn’t get “it” until later. Even in Acts they’re still squabbling about whether to include the Gentiles. So…I’m going both ways here: The early church does, to me, hold some weight, but then again, God also may be still progressively revealing His will to us. Could universalism be a part of that???

Denver

Here is a speech from Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev (2002), “Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent of Christ into Hades in Eastern and Western Theological Traditions” orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx. Hilarion defends the hope of universalism while he says that non-universalism is a widespread belief in the Orthodox tradition.

As far as I know, Orthodox churches don’t specify the length of the duration of torment in hell. My best guess is that universalism is optional per bishop or priest. I read about a related example. For example, some Orthodox churches memorialize only Orthodox believers while other Orthodox churches will memorialize anybody. And this option of practices varies from parish leader to parish leader (oca.org/QA.asp?ID=173&SID=3). I can only guess that belief in the hope of universalism verses non-universalism is the same. But I haven’t studied it enough to know for sure while I feel that I have a general idea about it.

Concerning your last question, I’m not sure about the effects of the option of universalism in Eastern Orthodoxy verses the non-universalism of Roman Catholicism. And the anser to that question doesn’t determine my biblical beliefs. In fact, Early Church Father beliefs don’t determine my biblical beliefs while I always get informed by Christian leaders throughout church history.

I believe Luther had a good understanding of Jesus when Luther began to understand justification by faith. But for some reason, Luther started to sound paranoid in 1528 and he clearly backslid into what I call Old Testament Christianity by 1536.

James,
But this is THEOLOGY not a knowing of Jesus. God is not angry about good or bad theology but the cry of the prophets is always against oppression.

Do you want to do the work of God? The real work of God? You can start here:
callandresponse.com/home.html

We can STOP supporting the slave trade (as we all do as American consumers) and STOP little girls and boys from being bought and sold for sex.

Some disturbing facts: Virgins bring more money (when they are sent out for week long ‘rentals’) partially because they are perceived to be aids free.

So what do their ‘owners’ do? When the week is up - get them back, sew their hymens back up and do it all over again.

So please, go to the link and see Jesus sans religion.

While we sit and discuss theology we are missing the entire point.

In Christ’s love,

  • Byron

Byron,

Other writings by Luther suggest that he had genuine encounters with Jesus Christ prior to his backsliding in 1536. We need to be careful how we judge other believers in both present and past. And we can also note that Luther prophetically cried out against many evils in his day.

I agree that we need to oppose modern slavery including child prostitution slavery. Our most important starting place is to focus on the ministry of the word and prayer while giving our all to God and the Great Commission, evangelism and discipleship in all nations. Child prostitution will stop when the earth is filled with the glory and knowledge of the Lord.

Don’t get me wrong James - I recognize that many good things came out of the reformation but at the same time we need to recognize that they were still encompassed with great spiritual darkness. We need to move on. I am not shy to say that someone who is willing to imprison, torture and kill others over beliefs and correct doctrine does not have a clue. This would include Luther and Calvin.

Sorry to be so blunt with the ‘real’ work of God comment. I have worked with some of the finest ministries in the country for decades and yet I see evangelical Christianity (by and large) missing the point.

Jesus told the 12 to go into all the world and make disciples, NOT us (I know this statement will be a tall hurdle for evangelicals). We need to free the oppressed now in practical ways. The time for preaching the gospel is over - it’s time to BE the gospel. We think the answer is for some mystical move of God to sweep the earth but I for one am unwilling to sit in a prayer closet while these atrocities are going on. I will fill the earth with the knowledge of God by DEMONSTRATING how much He and I care for these people (while the ‘church’ has one more bible study or more "How to " conference). I guarantee that if it was your own child there would be no closet needed before taking action. In that case putting a stop to it would be a number one priority, right?

So the bottom line that we don’t really care. The church (by and large) is more interested in being religious than doing the works of God. They think the enemy is Islam, or Satan, or the theory of evolution or an improper understanding of church doctrine.

The enemy is our own calloused hearts which allow us to sleep well while these things are happening on God’s planet.

So, did I kill this thread with my harsh judgements about our general condition of heart? Is no one going to defend us ugainst my vicious attacks? :wink:

Byron, We have major problems, but I strongly disagree with you when you say, “Jesus told the 12 to go into all the world and make disciples, NOT us.” Jesus said that all disciples of Christ need to be taught what Jesus taught the 11. This is way off.

“…and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Matthew 28:20 NIV

ooops, yes - my statement was way off. It was 11 at that time, not 12!

So what happened after the age ended and the temple was destroyed ect. ? A new religion was born - that’s what. Look at the pattern from that point forward. It’s not a pretty sight.

I have the same problems preterists have with folks taking what was specifically spoken to Jesus’ contemporaries and applying it to ourselves personally. That’s why rapture doctrine persists and the entire end-time prophecy ‘industry’ relies on this type of thinking to perpetuate itself.

Mark 13:7 (NKJV) But when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be troubled; for such things must happen, but the end is not yet. 8For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines and troubles. These are the beginnings of sorrows.
9"But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. 11But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 13And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved".

Who did Jesus say this too? Peter, James, John, and Andrew. Who would hear rumors of wars? Peter, James, John, and Andrew. Who got beaten in synagogues? Peter, James, John, and Andrew (the early apostles).

“The Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached to the whole world as a witness and THEN the end shall come".

So it’s something to consider that these things are fulfilled and our job is to be the good news and let the life of God live through us instead of teaching that the end is near and that ‘salvation’ comes through believing correct theology.

Byron, we’ve gone over some of this in the past. For example, many futurists incorporate preterist typologies. And the Gospel wasn’t preached to the whole world when Titus destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. And many churches outside of Jerusalem had no or minimal change resulting from the destruction of Jerusalem, so claiming that Christianity was a new religion after 70 holds no water outside of Jerusalem. And even the churches inside Jerusalem didn’t focus on the Temple when making decisions. And Jesus or anybody else in the New Testament never taught your dichotomy of being the good news versus proclaiming the good news. The commandment to fulfill the Great Commission still stands. The Church still needs to be the good news and proclaim the good news to all people. Please reconsider your logic.

I think from statements like “The time for preaching the gospel is over - it’s time to BE the gospel” you’re falling off the horse on the other side. The two notions are not mutually exclusive options. The overemphasis on the former comes from strong latent gnosticism, which is a theological heresy–and if someone doesn’t explain (or at least teach with accepted authority) why that’s not just something to be avoided because of unpleasant results, but also untrue, then people (including obviously Christians) are going to keep falling into that error. With those (to put it mildly) unpleasant results.

Dichotomizing between faith and works is not a good idea in either direction. But I tend to agree that charity should proceed along something like that represented by Mazlow’s hierarchy. One of the reasons institutional atheism went over so well in China and the Soviet Union is because the people preaching it made sure to address basic needs first. At first. (Then came the coersion and dehumanization contingent on the false teaching. Pretty rapidly after the teachers got the people to respect-them-into-power with the charity first, too.)

It’s a famous story now, in fact - the most popular in history. The main problem (generally speaking) is not that people don’t know it - it’s that they don’t see it.

As Jason points out above - atheists are sometimes wiser in their work than theists are in theirs.

Resources are poured into the church system but those who do the works of God outside of ‘proper’ theology are labeled new age heretics or secular humanists or even pawns of satan (false angels of light) ect ect.

My stance is basically that the true work of God has ALWAYS gone against the established tradition. As then - so now.

Sometimes, to bring back balance, drastic counter measures are needed :slight_smile:

Falling off the horse on the other side, doesn’t bring back balance. :wink:

Emphasizing both kinds of importance, in realistic and practical relations to each other, would bring back the balance.

This looks like an old thread, but I just noticed it and may be able to help some with the question of how the Eastern Orthodox view things.

First, I will copy a paragraph of the book “The Orthodox Church” by Bishop Kallistos Ware. It seems that this is the introductory book to Orthodoxy recommended first by all English speaking Orthodox.

“Hell exists as a final possibility, but several of the Fathers have none the less believed that in the end all will be reconciled to God. It is heretical to say that all must be saved, for this is to deny free will; but it is legitimate to hope that all may be saved. Until the Last Day comes, we must not despair of anyone’s salvation, but must long and pray for the reconciliation of all without exception. No one must be excluded from our loving intercession. ‘What is a merciful heart?’ asked Isaac the Syrian. ‘It is a heart that burns with love for the whole of creation, for humans, for the birds, for the beasts, for the demons, for all creatures.’ Gregory of Nyssa said that Christians may legitimately hope even for the redemption of the devil.”

The Orthodox have a way of not answering all questions. There is a respect for ‘mystery.’ The problem with saying that all must be saved is with saying it at this point within time. If you have read “The Great Divorce,” by Lewis, this may remind you of the problem he described there. So, the Orthodox will not say that all must be saved, but privately, I think that most of us expect it. One reason is the Orthodox understanding of evil. It is neither created nor eternal, therefore it does not exist. It is a lack. Your free will is like your breath. You can choose to blow a bubble of any evil shape with your being, but it has no real substance. It seems impossible that something like that could last forever. Indeed, you frequently hear Orthodox say that evil will cease to be and, since none of us believe in annihilation, this seems to imply something else. However, the Orthodox do not say that something else. We are coming up against something difficult to understand, so that any explanation might mislead in some way, just as Lewis suggested.

Thanks for that Gregory. I have had very little to do with either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox theology but found your quote very interesting. As for the RC view one of my favourite authors at the moment is the Scottish Jesuit priest Gerry Hughes who seems to be as close to a universalist as it might be possible within that system - he certainly inspires me.

But I think any horse will confirm that, having two riders on it’s back with one leaning wildly to one side is only balanced by another lunatic leaning wildly to the opposite side. :wink:

That being said, did you know there was a fairly major theological debate some decades ago about whether Paul fell of his horse or not? :open_mouth: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

I have a close friend who has left the American Christianity scene completely and has embraced the E.O. entirely. He’s an interesting fellow (a mensa member :open_mouth: ) and did explain that the E.O. is the real original church and that their oral tradition outweighs scripture (!) and that they do believe that eternal damnation is a rare anomaly. :question:
:bulb:

Now - he belongs to an American ‘sect’ of E.O. but if I had time (i don’t) I’d like to investigate all this…

As one of my spiritual mentors/ teachers is fond of saying; “The Reformation stopped well short of reforming much…” :wink:

In spite of a lot of movement in recent years into a more biblical direction, the vast majority of the Western church remains very institutional, and is in reality little more than “Protestantized” Catholicism in form.

We do have the church history supporting universal reconciliation.

Lessons From Church History, Volume 1, Dr. Stephen E. Jones

gods-kingdom-ministries.net/ … -volume-1/

Lessons From Church History, Volumes. 2-4

gods-kingdom-ministries.net/ … -volume-2/