Why I am No Longer A Universalist (Part 1)

[steve7150]

It’s unusual, for me, though I’ve come to believe in UR, for me Judgment has increased significantly in weight. No longer do I dismiss the judgment passages as not speaking to me because I’m saved; rather, the judgment passages are much more fearsome to me because “to whom much is given much is expected.” Before UR I’d glaze over the judgment passages becuase I interpreted them from a perspective of saved vs. unsaved; thus they did NOT apply to me because I am saved. Now though, they scare the hell outta me because I am saved. I recognize that most judgment passages are aimed at the children of God; the intended audience are those who claim to have a relationship with God. And these judgment passages are meant to call “us” to repentance, to call us to humility and love. So UR’s perspective on judgment scares the hell outta me, fills me with faith in God and love for all because all are my family.

Well put!

[Antonius_Block]

I’ve thought about annihilationism, but I’m stuck on whether it is better to exist, even in agony, rather than to not exist at all. I’m still undecided.

Yowser. That’s one hell of dilemma.

I was interested to read your post, awakeningaletheia. You say you reject UR on the grounds that some of those who believe it have jettisoned orthodox Christian belief and ended up as pluralists or atheists or whatever. Have you considered that there might be folk out there who are clinging on to orthodox Christian belief by their fingernails, and UR - the hope that God isn’t the cruel tyrant of the OT after all - is the only thing preventing them from letting go completely? Might it not be, under your belief system (so far as I understand it), that those folk remain beyond Satan’s eternal clutches because of their UR beliefs, not in spite of them?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

There’s a good article by an evangelical entitled An ‘evangelical inclusivist’ defends evangelical inclusivism. What’s interesting is what he asks about the exclusivist position (i.e. one must express an explicit believe in Christ in this life). Let me quote here:

For instance, Exclusivism must mean (if it is to be consistent) no salvation for those who die in childhood, no salvation for the millions of unevangelised who lived and died without hearing the Gospel and no salvation for dearly loved relatives who lived and died without embracing Christianity because they never properly understood it, even while they may have been loving, kind and gentle human beings. No salvation too for those who lived miserably short and sad lives of suffering and despair, perhaps in impoverished third world countries.

Let me just use the Socratic method and just ask these questions.

What exceptions would an exclusivist allow?
Would they allow the exceptions the author stated above?
Can you extent the realm and list of exceptions?

If you press the exclusivist on exceptions, you might get some interesting answers.

And you might even look on universalists as possible exclusivists who take exceptions to the infinite degree - assuming they believe that you need to express an explicit belief in Christ, either in this life or the next.

Then on the other hand, you get this problem with universalism. What about free will and will everyone accept God’s plan of restoration?

And how will Apocatastasis unfold?

WIll it be like The Evangelical Universalist: The biblical hope that God’s love will save us all by Gregory MacDonald outlines?
WIll it be like that outlined by the Continuing Church of God entitled Universal Salvation? Bible Supports Apocatastasis at Apocatastasis by Dr. Bob Thiel at Dr Who? , although it outlines how they believe it will unfold. In it, he mentions a second gospel being preached to all people. He has a section entitled: IX. Some Few Will Willfully Reject God’s Generous Offer But Their End Will Be Swift.
Some other way?

The free will element is what makes me a definitive inclusivist and annihilationist. But since God’s plan of salavation is, in the words of the philosopher Gottfried Leibniz:

“the best of all possible worlds”

, most people - if not all - will most likely choose it. So that makes me a potential universalist. And I’ll include a tidbit from Eastern Orthodox theology - it’s a divine mystery how it will unfold.

But Dr. Timothy Dalrymple in A Framework for Understanding the Rob Bell Controversy, talks about different scales.

Could we look on Exclusivists as those who allow few or little exceptions, on one side of the scale? And universalists on the other end, that allow an infinite number of exceptions?
And what exceptions - if any - would exclusivists allow?

[Nick_Baker]

What you say makes perfect sense, Awakening. I get the same sense that you are talking about on Facebook Universalist forums and this one. While I don’t think dropping UR doctrine will fix that (it doesn’t for me), I would rather focus on other issues anyways. Relationship with Christ is 1st in priorities. Getting people into the Kingdom is 2nd. All other doctrine not related to salvation in this age follows afterwards. I’m only on this site for affirmation of UR beliefs (so I don’t crazy thinking I’m the only adherent), friendship, spiritual growth, and fun (by debating).
Anyways, I honor and respect your decision not to be a universalist anymore. Although, I must admit Jason’s essay is quite persuasive.

[anon12438761]

The reason I stay a convinced universalist is this: the other options - ECT, annihilationism - make the Father into an ego-centric Tyrant, so concerned about His Glory that eternal torment of most of his creatures, or the resurrection of those that have died in sin in order to annihilate them, is necessary to show His “Justice”.

I cannot imagine any universe where those options make any sense AT ALL.

Just sayin’…that is my main reason for continuance. I have many other reasons as well; but at bottom, it is the moral argument against Calvinism that convinced me (along with the work of the Holy Spirit, is my hope) of the utter goodness of God. That Fatherly Goodness is the only place my heart/mind can rest.

[Cole_H]

The thing that I think about sometimes is all those who haven’t heard of Christ and the problem of evil and suffering. The only way out for me is to take the interpretation of the Bible that agrees with universalism. In order for there to be justice in the universe I see no other option. Hell is real and terrible and I don’t want to go there but it’s not eternal. I think you will also find that there is bitter people on all sides of the issue. For me, when I am upset and angry at someone I often times want eternal suffering to be true. But if I just relax and realize that justice will be done and look with compassion on sick people eternal suffering falls by the wayside. Eternal suffering has caused me more harm than good. Thank God there are other ways to look at scripture. Just look at Alvin Plantinga. He’s a hopeful universalist and he still holds to scripture as being God’s word. He’s arguably America’s greatest analytic philosopher in the philosophy of religion. People have given hard thought to this issue and have come back believing that it is a possible reading of God’s word. People fall away for many different reasons. Some of them because they believe the Bible absolutely teaches eternal suffering. It depends on the person really.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

The problem is that we base our understanding on Sola scriptura. That means different theologians, denominations, bible and community churches, and TV evangelists, have different understandings to what the Bible contains and says. Now the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches, ask the right questions to Protestants:

Where does the bible come from?
How was it put together?

In Anglo-Orthodoxy": Why some Episcopalians are turning to Eastern Orthodoxy for spiritual enlightenment by William DiPuccio, Ph.D at Anglo-Orthodoxy it says,

“When approaching Scripture, it is better to trust the collective wisdom of the ages than the myopic vision of contemporary individuals or groups.”

So my summary is a hybrid of:

The scriptural insights and questions of authors Rob Bell, Gregory MacDonald and Dr. Bob Thiel at the Continuing Church of God
The theological insights of the Eastern Orthodox Churches
The mystical visions of Julian of Norwich and Tiffany Snow
The Roman Catholic and Protestant teachings on inclusivism

In terms of Universal reconciliation, I don’t attempt to explain things. I start with the revelations given to Catholic mystic Julian of Norwich :

The saying Catholic mystic Julian of Norwich,

“All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well”

I know a contemporary Roman Catholic priest, who can hear God speaking to him. He also has the gift of healing, where I’ve been on the receiving end many times. So I do believe Julian’s account.

I also believe contemporary Tiffany Snow’s visions in Stigmata, as I had extensive communication with her Old Catholic Church priest husband. I was a bishop in the independent Catholic movement at that time.

Now it could be both Julian and Tiffany have had false visions, hallucinations, mental derangement, etc., but I don’t think or believe so.
But I do allow for two questions:

Will human beings have free will to choose the plan and will they choose it?
How much time will God allow humans to make that choice? An eternity? What is God’s timetable?

Hence, I embrace Inclusivism and annihilation as realities, the Eastern Orthodox explanation of Heaven and Hell as states - not places, and universalism as potential.

Then I embrace the explanation of many theological events from Eastern Orthodoxy: How it will unfold remains a divine mystery. God never told Julian of Norwich how all things will be well. Author Gregory MacDonald, Tiffany Snow and Dr. Bob Thiel, all outline various ways Apocatastasis might unfold (as well as folks here on the forum) - all equally possible.

If we look at the two largest Christian denominations:

Many in Eastern Orthodoxy are hopeful or potential universalists.
The Roman Catholic Church has embraced inclusivism since Vatican II and hope and pray for the universal salvation of all.

[Sherman]

Hi Daniel,

This morning I was pondering your reasons for no longer believing that Jesus is the savior of all, whereas for me belief that Jesus is savior of all has only solidified. Why has UR only solidified for me? I think it is because UR was not the only belief that changed for me. There are two primary doctrines that for me came along with UR. They were 1) that judgment is not the separation of the saved from the unsaved, but that judgement is meant to purge us all from evil, and 2) the brotherhood of all humanity, that we are all children of God.

I’ve previously mentioned how in studying the judgment passages I came to understand them as being meant to call the children of God to repentance, not meant to scare people into a relationship with God, but to scare the hell outta those in relationship with God. Pre-UR instead of applying them to my life, I’d dismiss such passages as not applying to me because I was saved by Grace. Yes, sin would bring death and destruction to my live and the lives of those I loved, but I need not fear Hell because I believed in the grace and mercy of God; thus these harsh passages didn’t really apply to me because I read into them warnings of Hell. My traditions had nullified the power of the word of God to call me to repentance. UR destroyed those traditions and left me to wrestle with those passages and repent.

At the same time, the truth of us all being Children of God started changing the way I saw others. No longer were the unsaved not family, but they were family estranged from our Father and we who have been reconciled. “Created in the image of God” is an idiomatic familial term; my children bear my image. Thus all people are my family and I should love them as such and treat them as such. It’s no longer us vs. them, but we are all family. This understanding increased my love for those who are not yet reconciled to God and our family.

I can also see the Lord preparing me to believe in UR through studying for years the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. As you know Calvinism’s core belief is God is Sovereign. Arminianism’s core belief is God is Love. In scripture I can see solid evidence in support of both of these. Calvinism limits the love of God and Arminianism limits the sovereignty of God. Yet, scripture affirms both principles, I believe. And if you believe both fully and not mitigate either then it only follows that God would sovereignly reconcile all whom he loves. So when I came to see the many pro-UR scriptures, they set well in my heart because for years I had come to accept in faith both that God is soveriegn and God is love though I couldn’t logically combine them with belief in Hell. When I came to see that scripture does not affirm ECT, it was relatively easy for me to embrace that Jesus is truly savior of all in reality and not just in title.

And even before this, many years ago I underwent another radical change in beliefs, moving from being a cessasionalist to believing in and experiencing the present reality of the baptism with the Spirit and various manifestations of the Spirit like healing, prophecy, tongues, miracles, etc. This was a radical change for me, a change that cost me much in relationships, but one I was compelled to make based on my personal study of scripture and encounter with the Lord. At the time I had to come to a place where I put my trust in the Lord and not in my own understanding, which was a radical attitudinal change for me.

For me, these things prepared me to whole-heartedly embrace UR and to be increasingly convinced of its truth.

Well, anyhow, I’m glad you continue to seek the Lord and trust that you’ll continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Father.
Blessings upon you and yours. And Merry Christmas!
Your brother,
Sherman

[anon47460357]

So why then do I not subscribe to UR? My personal reasons are many, but I will only explore two here. First, because I see it leads to a degrading of Scripture for some of those who adopt it. They try to invalidate the OT picture of God (who shows His wrath against sinners, not just sin). I have seen those who were the most adamant defenders of UR end up no longer as Christians, but denying the deity of Jesus, and believing in strange ideas of spirituality. Once the Scriptures go and their authoritative teaching, mostly everything else goes.

You would say of course that many of you have not gone that route, granted. But for me personally, when I see some quite normal believers become nearly new agers adopting all kinds of false teaching because ‘Love is my god’, and I can trace it all back to them adopting UR, that troubles me. Jesus said wisdom is justified by her children. If what is being taught leads to more and more denial of Christ, then no matter how good it sounds, then it is antiChrist. Why is it that the most widespread group of universalists today are the pluralistic Unitarians? Why would a group that originally claimed to be Christian allow themselves to degenerate into a feel-good psuedo-religion? Add to that my personal experience with individual believers going that exact same way and I have solid reasons to be concerned. A good tree does not produce bad fruit. The Holy Spirit does not produce heresy, that’s the work of the flesh.

The answer to this is in different personalities. Consider:

If most people in a given society are raised to believe in unending Hell, which segment of that society would consider and even become Christian universalists? That’s easy: Those who question, those who probe, those who do not say, “It was good enough for my parents, so it’s good enough for me.”

Why do a considerable number of these Christian universalists then go on to doubt the doctrines of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, etc.? Again, it is because of their personality type. They are questioners, probers, investigators.

Hence, universalism does not lead to denying the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. Rather, the same type of person who is willing to jettison one childhood belief (regardless of what it is) is more likely to jettison other childhood beliefs as well.

Consider an imaginary Christian society in which most children are raised to believe in universalism, the Trinity, and the Incarnation. Which segment of this society would be most likely to jettison belief in universalism? The questioners, the probers, the investigators. And precisely because of their personality type, they would be more likely than others to go on to jettison other childhood beliefs, such as belief in the Trinity and in the Incarnation.

Could I therefore conclude that disbelief in universalism leads to disbelief in the Trinity and in the Incarnation? Certainly not. I could only conclude that the type of person who would question Childhood Belief X would be more likely to also question Childhood Beliefs Y and Z. A person who is not a questioner/investigator/prober would probably not question any of his childhood beliefs.

In conclusion, we see that your first concern comes down to nothing more than different personality types.

[davo]

I am not afraid of what my Bible says, because I’m willing for it to tell me of a God who I have not tried to force into saving everyone.

Hi Awakeningaletheia,

Given that neither you nor I could ever force God to do anything contrary to His will – revealed or otherwise, thus “we” could never “force” Him to “save” anyone… and, given you are “not afraid of what my Bible says” – what do you make of that which for all intents and purposed is plain, straightforward and unforced right here…

1Tim 4:9-11 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.

What is your approach to said text?

[steve7150]

They try to invalidate the OT picture of God (who shows His wrath against sinners, not just sin).
d

BTW re this OT picture of God it’s a bit misleading. God did show his wrath occasionally as he also did in the NT but 99.9% of the time he was merciful and gracious. The OT covers over 5,000 years and you can count on two hands (maybe one) the number of times he was wrathful. The rest of the time he was merciful. The OT Covenant was also different therefore our relationship with God was different, but now under the New Covenant we have different and better Covenant.

[JasonPratt]

Consider an imaginary Christian society in which most children are raised to believe in universalism, the Trinity, and the Incarnation. Which segment of this society would be most likely to jettison belief in universalism? The questioners, the probers, the investigators. And precisely because of their personality type, they would be more likely than others to go on to jettison other childhood beliefs, such as belief in the Trinity and in the Incarnation.

Could I therefore conclude that disbelief in universalism leads to disbelief in the Trinity and in the Incarnation? Certainly not. I could only conclude that the type of person who would question Childhood Belief X would be more likely to also question Childhood Beliefs Y and Z. A person who is not a questioner/investigator/prober would probably not question any of his childhood beliefs.

Well said!

(Though I routinely find that a disbelief in universalism leads to explicitly or tacitly rejecting portions of trinitarian theism in other ways. )

[Micah]

But back to my personal unrest. I had no peace under universalism, I felt the arguments were solid and the idea was grand, but I could find no peace within me. And to be honest I read in most comments on these boards the very same thing. Many of those who believe in UR are discouraged and despairing, they have a hard time reading the Scriptures (because as I have read from some, they still ‘hurt’).

Hi, aletheia …

My experience has been quite the opposite: I’ve felt more at peace and at ease finding that God is indeed Love – not just sometimes, but always – whether that Love is expressed in wrathful judgement or in mercy, with the purpose being for the reconciliation of all created persons so they can grow to participate in Love as intended, and never to mete out punishment just for punishment’s sake, as if mere retribution and suffering could make amends for injustices against Love.

I’ve only grown more confident in the truth that Love is the highest law over all, just as Christ said – confident that the nature of God always fulfills this highest law, and will not rest until He is indeed All in All.

[Eaglesway]

So many scriptures make no sense in an eternal torment paradigm. I was introduced to UR in 1979 and I was in the ministry, a young man, kind of ambitious. UR really threw a monkey wrench into the gears of my machine LOL. I tried for years to poke a hole n it. Went with annihilation for awhile, but at a certain point a took a sabbatical and studied the doctrine of eternal judgment for about 6 months. I came out rejoicing. The salvation of all is a key that opens the whole matrix of the scriptures.

Colossians 1:16-21, Ephesians 1:9-11, Romans 11:32-36, 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, Romans 8:18-23… All of these verses that are never taught from pulpits or in seminaries because there is no other context within which they integrate with one another except within the context of a universe where God will ultimately reconcile all and be “all in all”.

I am so glad I was able to take that time. It made a heretic of me ;o), but since that time I have shared theses things with others and found much joyous reception. I always loved the scriptures, i love them now more than ever.

I don’t see too many people argue from the point of the scriptures against UR, othr than to repeat the same few verses that can be organized to portray an eternal torment paradigm. Thing is you have to cut off a lot of verses to do that. From the UR paradigm, all of those scriptures are still in force.

[cleverest]

Consider an imaginary Christian society in which most children are raised to believe in universalism, the Trinity, and the Incarnation. Which segment of this society would be most likely to jettison belief in universalism? The questioners, the probers, the investigators. And precisely because of their personality type, they would be more likely than others to go on to jettison other childhood beliefs, such as belief in the Trinity and in the Incarnation.

Could I therefore conclude that disbelief in universalism leads to disbelief in the Trinity and in the Incarnation? Certainly not. I could only conclude that the type of person who would question Childhood Belief X would be more likely to also question Childhood Beliefs Y and Z. A person who is not a questioner/investigator/prober would probably not question any of his childhood beliefs.

Well said!

(Though I routinely find that a disbelief in universalism leads to explicitly or tacitly rejecting portions of trinitarian theism in other ways. )

I reject a belief in the Trinity (in every way that I can discern)…The scriptural basis of why I’ve found to be best captured (as I’ve grown in my own walk), by the late L Ray Smith’s paper on it, avail on bibletruths.com as: ‘Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY’ - but I had already done so looong BEFORE I ever believed in UR, I just think this paper really nails down the reasons WHY for rejecting it as a doctrine, and I agree with those reasons. Coming to the Glorious Truth of UR didn’t change this belief in me in the slightest. I don’t find a belief in a triune God to be the least bit necessary to hold that God will reconcile/save all of His creation without exception. God could be one person, or 500 million, He’s still God and He is still All-Mighty! (but this is another topic I figure…)

[Agnostic_Gabe]

Consider an imaginary Christian society in which most children are raised to believe in universalism, the Trinity, and the Incarnation. Which segment of this society would be most likely to jettison belief in universalism? The questioners, the probers, the investigators. And precisely because of their personality type, they would be more likely than others to go on to jettison other childhood beliefs, such as belief in the Trinity and in the Incarnation.

Could I therefore conclude that disbelief in universalism leads to disbelief in the Trinity and in the Incarnation? Certainly not. I could only conclude that the type of person who would question Childhood Belief X would be more likely to also question Childhood Beliefs Y and Z. A person who is not a questioner/investigator/prober would probably not question any of his childhood beliefs.

Well said!

(Though I routinely find that a disbelief in universalism leads to explicitly or tacitly rejecting portions of trinitarian theism in other ways. )

I reject a belief in the Trinity (in every way that I can discern)…The scriptural basis of why I’ve found to be best captured (as I’ve grown in my own walk), by the late L Ray Smith’s paper on it, avail on bibletruths.com as: ‘Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY’ - but I had already done so looong BEFORE I ever believed in UR, I just think this paper really nails down the reasons WHY for rejecting it as a doctrine, and I agree with those reasons. Coming to the Glorious Truth of UR didn’t change this belief in me in the slightest. I don’t find a belief in a triune God to be the least bit necessary to hold that God will reconcile/save all of His creation without exception. God could be one person, or 500 million, He’s still God and He is still All-Mighty! (but this is another topic I figure…)

I am trying to figure out why there is such an obsession with the Trinity? How does it change your life for the better? I guess I don’t understand why this is even an important ‘doctrine’.

[Cindy_Skillman]

I’m a strong Trinitarian, yet I’m not terribly evangelical for the Trinity doctrine, and that seems to me the norm (for this site anyway). It’s not that I can’t explain or defend my view. I just don’t feel a big need to persuade non-Trinitarians that I’m right. I’ve found that as a whole, where I’ve encountered them, that non-Trinitarians do tend to be more evangelical for their monism (I hope that’s the right word?) Perhaps because it often comes paired with preterism, and they find dispensationalism to be an objectionable doctrine? Just guessing.

[anon47460357]

The saddest thing I ever read about the doctrine of the Trinity was, if I recall correctly, in Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God Is within You. Keep in mind that we Eastern Orthodox say the phrase “the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” roughly 20 times during the regular Sunday liturgy. That comes to about 1,000 times per year, considering Sunday mornings alone. Anyway, in Tolstoy’s day, various “men on the street” in Russia were asked to name the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. The most common answer? “Jesus, Mary, and St. Nicholas.”

In recent years a poll was taken of lay Catholics living in Rome. They were asked, “When you are really in trouble, to whom do you pray?” Guess who was number six on the list? Jesus Christ. (I think I can guess the first five: the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, St. Francis, St. Jude, and Padre Pio.)

Lest Protestants think they get off Scot free, I will note that (with very few exceptions) the explanations of the Trinity offered to me by Protestants tend to be heretical (Sabellian, to be precise): “The Trinity is like water, which can be in three forms: liquid, solid, and gas!” or “The Trinity is like an egg, which has three parts: the yolk, the white, and the shell.”

My point is that most self-affirmed Trinitarians (whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant) tend to be very, shall we say, imprecise and unsophisticated about their belief in the Trinity.

[Nick_Baker]

The Trinity, while it is a fascinating topic, is not related to the OP. Don’t know if any of the moderators want to start a new discussion of the Trinity on a separate post. Thanks.

[anon12438761]

But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.
Just sayin’