Christian Universalism and Universalism

[Jason76]

The first states that people keep experiencing correction - in this life and the after-life - making some closer to Christian salvation. The other states that the major religions eventually lead to salvation - but it might not be Christian.

OK, I agree with the first - and mind you, it isn't a popular belief. It's attacked for being unbiblical, soft, and perhaps just some type of rehashed Hinduism.

 

[Lamb]

I was always under the impression that Christian universalism was the same as universalism...that all are saved through Jesus whether or not they profess Him. I'm wondering if there is a different term other than what you've given for Christian Universalism then?

 

[Albion]

The first states that people keep experiencing correction - in this life and the after-life - making some closer to Christian salvation. The other states that the major religions eventually lead to salvation - but it might not be Christian.

OK, I agree with the first - and mind you, it isn't a popular belief. It's attacked for being unbiblical, soft, and perhaps just some type of rehashed Hinduism.

The first of those two had a following in the early years of the church, and there is some scriptural support for it, but it did not posit that everyone everywhere regardless of their religion was on that same path (which Hinduism does). Today in the West, what is most often called universalism simply means a belief that everybody--just by nature--will wind up in glory. That view is incompatible with Christianity, which is why it caused shockwaves when two recent popes voiced their support for the idea with only slight modifications.

 

[MennoSota]

The first states that people keep experiencing correction - in this life and the after-life - making some closer to Christian salvation. The other states that the major religions eventually lead to salvation - but it might not be Christian.

OK, I agree with the first - and mind you, it isn't a popular belief. It's attacked for being unbiblical, soft, and perhaps just some type of rehashed Hinduism.

Both are entirely man-centered. Both ignore the Sovereign authority of God in choosing whom He wills, apart from any merit based system.
In both scenarios, it is human merit that moves God to compassion. Both views are biblically unsupported and illegitimate.

 

[NewCreation435]

Universalism sounds nice, but it isn't biblical at all

 

[Albion]

Universalism sounds nice, but it isn't biblical at all

FWIW, there actually is some Biblical basis, but it is overwhelmed by the verses that go the other way. See, for instance, Acts 3:21, John 1:29, Romans 5:18, Romans 11:32, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, and Acts 17:22

 

[Andrew]

What does it mean that every knee shall bow? I was always confused by that, is it that everyone will be judged before God?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What does it mean that every knee shall bow? I was always confused by that, is it that everyone will be judged before God?

It could be like in Game of Thrones where to bend the knee means to acknowledge the suzerainty of the one to whom you bend the knee.

 

[Andrew]

It could be like in Game of Thrones where to bend the knee means to acknowledge the suzerainty of the one to whom you bend the knee.

I never played that game or movie or whatever it is lol

 

[NewCreation435]

FWIW, there actually is some Biblical basis, but it is overwhelmed by the verses that go the other way. See, for instance, Acts 3:21, John 1:29, Romans 5:18, Romans 11:32, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, and Acts 17:22

Okay, let's look at those one at a time and see if it really addresses universalism
21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. Acts 3:21
This doesn't suggest to me universalism, but it does suggest that God restores creation to its original intent one day at the end of time. He will do that with a new earth and a new heaven.

John 1:29
9 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
This needs to be taken in its context. We know that all did not receive him as it says in this same chapter in verse 12. But, to the ones who do receive him he gives the right to become children of God

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. Romans 5:18 This is close, but again the important thing is context. The one act of righteousness results in justification for all people who call upon him. Again, not all people will call upon him.


Romans 11:32 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
needs to be read in context. The whole chapter starts by talking about Israel and the hardening that is presently going on in their hearts and the open door to the gospel experienced by the Gentiles

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
He is the only atoning sacrifice. He was the only one qualified in all of creation to be our sacrifice, but not all will accept that. To those who don't, only eternal punish waits

1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
This being said, he is the only Savior because there is not other way. Jesus described himself as the way the truth and life. Yet, not everyone will accept their need for him or humble themselves to come to him. That is the essence of sin. That we think we can find our own way without him

Acts 17:22
22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.
I'm not sure why you put this passage in your list. All Paul said was that they were religious.

 

[Albion]

Let's be clear that I am not arguing for Universalism, but simply replying to the comment that "it isn't Biblical at all." In reality, there are verses that may support it, and these are the ones that Universalists often point to.

As you went though the list, I agreed with your judgment on some of them; but I have to say that, on some other ones, you seem to have simply reworked them to have the meaning fit your already-established belief.

As for the last one in that lineup which caused some problem, that was supposed to have been Acts 17:23. My apologies for that. ("For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you").

 

[NewCreation435]

Let's be clear that I am not arguing for Universalism, but simply replying to the comment that "it isn't Biblical at all." In reality, there are verses that may support it, and these are the ones that Universalists often point to.

As you went though the list, I agreed with your judgment on some of them; but I have to say that, on some other ones, you seem to have simply reworked them to have the meaning fit your already-established belief.

As for the last one in that lineup which caused some problem, that was supposed to have been Acts 17:23. My apologies for that. ("For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you").

One basic assumption that I make when interpreting scripture is that the scriptures are in harmony with each other. Because God's word is not inconsistent nor is it without harmony. So, the correct interpretation of one verse will be compatible with others that talk about the same thing. If it isn't then my interpretation is not correct. So, when trying to understand one difficult passage, I try to look at other passages that say the same thing or close to the same thing.

I'm still not sure how the Acts 17:23 verse deals with universalism.

 

[Josiah]

I was always under the impression that Christian universalism was the same as universalism...that all are saved through Jesus whether or not they profess Him. I'm wondering if there is a different term other than what you've given for Christian Universalism then?

Yup.

Christian Universalism is an outgrowth of Calvinism. In TULIP, justification is the result of Christ dying for THEM (the "L")... but because of the predestination, this is just for some unknowable few. Many Calvinists rejected the "L" (for very biblical reasons) but retained the idea that justification is not apprehended by faith but simply applied to the elect, irresistably. Noting that Christ died for ALL (as the Bible so undeniably teaches).... but retaining the "I" (this is irresistable) and the idea that faith is irrelevant... they ended up with universalism. Very logical (as Calvinists love to be), just very unbiblical.

As my wife noted to me (she comes out of a conservative Reformed background), if you travel in New England, there are Universalist churches all over the place.... and nearly all of them were once Calvinist (including the most famous one - founded by the Pilgrims in Plymouth, MASS). Their mistake (IMO) was that they only rejected the "L" rather than most of TULIP.

I can "see" the point of the opening poster.... I don't think it's typically called "Universalism" but I DO think MOST people in the world believe that either there is no salvation (and no afterlife) OR that all are saved. Have you ever heard of a memorial service where the point is that the loved now is now in hell (or even Purgatory)? Nope. It appears most are universalists in the sense that they hold that all go to heaven - Buddhists, Agnostics, etc.




.

 

[Josiah]

One basic assumption that I make when interpreting scripture is that the scriptures are in harmony with each other. Because God's word is not inconsistent nor is it without harmony. So, the correct interpretation of one verse will be compatible with others that talk about the same thing. If it isn't then my interpretation is not correct. So, when trying to understand one difficult passage, I try to look at other passages that say the same thing or close to the same thing.

I'm still not sure how the Acts 17:23 verse deals with universalism.

Good points...


Acts 17:33 IMO simply affirms that God is the God of all and Jesus is the Savior of all. Of course, that does NOT teach universalism since not all have faith. For justification to be for the individual, that one must have faith in what IS, what is REAL, what actually exists (The Blood of the Lamb).

 

[MennoSota]

FWIW, there actually is some Biblical basis, but it is overwhelmed by the verses that go the other way. See, for instance, Acts 3:21, John 1:29, Romans 5:18, Romans 11:32, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, and Acts 17:22

Indeed, misreading and misinterpretation of verses can lead to universalism expressed. For example, the person using 1 Peter 3:9 to argue for free-will is also arguing for universal atonement of all humanity, declaring that "God does not will that any should perish" to be universally true.
The Reformed person recognizes that verse for only the elect and therefore refuses the universalist argument.

 

[Albion]

Yes, there certainly are verses (such as the one you chose) that seem to refute universalism or at least speak of the alternate concept that is the usual Christian view of the matter. But again, and before we harrumph the idea out of hand and call it unbiblical, it is worth noting that there are some verses that do seem to support universalism and cannot be easily dismissed as meaning something else.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, there certainly are verses (such as the one you chose) that seem to refute universalism or at least speak of the alternate concept that is the usual Christian view of the matter. But again, and before we harrumph the idea out of hand and call it unbiblical, it is worth noting that there are some verses that do seem to support universalism and cannot be easily dismissed as meaning something else.

It is possible that the universalist and the other verses really do contradict one another.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, there certainly are verses (such as the one you chose) that seem to refute universalism or at least speak of the alternate concept that is the usual Christian view of the matter. But again, and before we harrumph the idea out of hand and call it unbiblical, it is worth noting that there are some verses that do seem to support universalism and cannot be easily dismissed as meaning something else.

Misunderstanding of the word "all" in not applying it to all the elect can easily make the "all" universal. If a free-will proponent is honest and draws their thoughts to the full conclusion, they will become universalists. Those who are semi-pelagians simply refuse to do the mental exercise of bringing their argument to its logical conclusion.

 

[Albion]

Misunderstanding of the word "all" in not applying it to all the elect can easily make the "all" universal. .

Which verses are you referring to?

 

[MennoSota]

Which verses are you referring to?

I can't think of the handful, but here are a couple of the popular ones.
1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.