Is there a case for Universalism?

[SSTeacher]

If it is impossible for an objective observer to know conclusively which Christian tradition is 100% right (assuming the observer presupposes that one of them actually is 100% right) the inevitable default position has to be that the Holy Spirit uses all Christian traditions for salvation knowing that His truth will always be mixed with human errors in understanding.

So if one accepts that there is such a thing as absolute truth (cf. John 14:6) yet also accepts this idea of God making divine allowance for human error to the degree that He will not withhold salvation from somebody who is sincerely wrong in his or her understanding of God (i.e. not absolutely right in his or her beliefs and commensurate life application), doesn’t that suggest that Universalism is true and that all will eventually be saved?

Hypothetically,
Mick

 

[ejb21]

If it is impossible for an objective observer to know conclusively which Christian tradition is 100% right (assuming the observer presupposes that one of them actually is 100% right) the inevitable default position has to be that the Holy Spirit uses all Christian traditions for salvation knowing that His truth will always be mixed with human errors in understanding.

So if one accepts that there is such a thing as absolute truth (cf. John 14:6) yet also accepts this idea of God making divine allowance for human error to the degree that He will not withhold salvation from somebody who is sincerely wrong in his or her understanding of God (i.e. not absolutely right in his or her beliefs and commensurate life application), doesn’t that suggest that Universalism is true and that all will eventually be saved?

Hypothetically,
Mick

Mick

Your choice of using the word “sincerely” makes the question a very interesting question. I gather this would eliminate those who opt for the belief that everyone is going to heaven, on a toboggan, regardless how they live their lives.

 

[JonNC]

If it is impossible for an objective observer to know conclusively which Christian tradition is 100% right (assuming the observer presupposes that one of them actually is 100% right) the inevitable default position has to be that the Holy Spirit uses all Christian traditions for salvation knowing that His truth will always be mixed with human errors in understanding.

So if one accepts that there is such a thing as absolute truth (cf. John 14:6) yet also accepts this idea of God making divine allowance for human error to the degree that He will not withhold salvation from somebody who is sincerely wrong in his or her understanding of God (i.e. not absolutely right in his or her beliefs and commensurate life application), doesn’t that suggest that Universalism is true and that all will eventually be saved?

Hypothetically,
Mick

Well, Mick, universalism, to me, implies that all will be saved and it really doesn’t matter what you believe. So, there’s no sense spending time on unimportant things like doctrine, and wasteful pursuits like ecumenism. IOW, there is a complacency implied in universalism that I reject.

Jon

 

[SSTeacher]

Mick

Your choice of using the word “sincerely” makes the question a very interesting question. I gather this would eliminate those who opt for the belief that everyone is going to heaven, on a toboggan, regardless how they live their lives.

Indeed it would. But the judgment as to who is sincere and who is not sincere is left entirely in the province of the Lord. And as we’ve been commanded not to judge I think that allows me to pose the reasonable question that as far as we are able to ascertain perhaps everybody will be saved?

Thoughtfully,
Mick

 

[Publisher]

I have for quite a while embraced “universalism”. It has not left me complacent…it has freed me to put my efforts into making the world in which I live better. It has freed me from worrying about the souls of others and given me the impetus to care for more temporal needs of those around me.

Two favorite books have put these thoughts into words…both are by Quakers Philip Gulley and James Mulholland…“If Grace is True” and “If God is Love”.

While I disagree with some of their conclusions…the books have been useful in helping me to understand a “Christian universalism” better.

I recommend them to any interested.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Faulty premises:

If it is impossible for an objective observer to know conclusively which Christian tradition is 100% right

result in faulty conclusions:

Universalism is true and that all will eventually be saved?

The truth is that it is possible to be 100% certain of the truth of Divine Revelation if a person doesn’t blind themselves. Even those who haven’t had the Gospel preached to them can know enough from natural reason to be saved (i.e., there is one God, don’t do evil, etc. – cf. Baptism of desire (which isn’t Universalism)).

 

[ejb21]

Indeed it would. But the judgment as to who is sincere and who is not sincere is left entirely in the province of the Lord. And as we’ve been commanded not to judge I think that allows me to pose the reasonable question that as far as we are able to ascertain perhaps everybody will be saved?

Thoughtfully,
Mick

Mick

The part about the toboggan was tongue-in-cheek. I would agree that the judgement of who is sincere and who is not sincere would be left entirely to the Lord. The sad part is that sometimes in discussions on theology and doctrine too-many of us (myself included) are too-quick to take on that role of judge. In the last couple years I’ve been told by several people that I’m going to hell for believing in Catholic teachings. In my heart I believe that most of them - maybe even all of them - mean well, that they care about me. And then there’s the one so full of hatred of all things catholic that I have to ask myself whether ill-will is present there. Take care.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Universalism as you described it seems to hinge on salvation by faith, regardless of sins, and also overlooks the fact that people commit sins that they know are sins. Lastly, it overlooks that you have some knowledge “written on your heart”.

Also, If everyone was saved, what would be the point of hell existing? Since we know that exists, I don’t think universalism is true.

 

[JRKH]

If it is impossible for an objective observer to know conclusively which Christian tradition is 100% right (assuming the observer presupposes that one of them actually is 100% right) the inevitable default position has to be that the Holy Spirit uses all Christian traditions for salvation knowing that His truth will always be mixed with human errors in understanding.

So if one accepts that there is such a thing as absolute truth (cf. John 14:6) yet also accepts this idea of God making divine allowance for human error to the degree that He will not withhold salvation from somebody who is sincerely wrong in his or her understanding of God (i.e. not absolutely right in his or her beliefs and commensurate life application), doesn’t that suggest that Universalism is true and that all will eventually be saved?

Hypothetically,
Mick

The issue of one’s sincerity is always going to be around and God will have to deal with it at Judgement. The part of the Question I find interesting is this:
that the Holy Spirit uses all Christian traditions for salvation knowing that His truth will always be mixed with human errors in understanding.

I have a hard time squaring that idea with Jesus Prayer that all be one as He and the Father are One. Also St. Paul admonishes the faithful to be of “One Mind”.
Now it is one thing to have differences on practice such as whether the mass be said in English or Latin, Pauline Form or Tridentine. In this case “One mind” can, like myself, find both forms of practice to be just fine.
It is an entirely other thing to have differences on whether Christ is really present or just symbolically present in the Eucharist. How can. “One mind” be divided on this??

I can only conclude that, while a certain “sincerity based universalism” is undoubtedly employed by Our Lord, that it must have limits.

Peace
James

 

[Hebrew_Student]

Mick,

This is why Dr. Cornelius Van Til taught that knowledge does not come from continuing to ask “how do you know,” and finding justification for everything, because no one can keep justifying everything unto infinity. Dr. Van Til argued that knowledge comes from the fact that we are created in God’s image, and that he has condescended to us in order to reveal himself to us. Because of that, we are able to think and reason in a proper fashion.

However, the problem is that sin has come into the world, and caused us to supress the knowledge of the truth. However, we still have to rely upon God’s existence, for we live and move and have our being in him. Hence, we will be forced to hold contradictory or arbitrary beliefs that cannot be reconciled with our most fundamental presuppositions about reality.

That is why Dr. Van Til took this principle, and applied Kant’s transcendental argument to this very discussion. He argued that a Christian presupposes God’s voluntary condescention, and thus, our knowledge is not dependent upon natural reason, but upon God himself. Therefore, that is the foundation of our knowledge. Hence, any departure from that is going to require a self contradiction in terms of the most basic assumptions about reality.

I can see, however, how this would be a problem for a Roman Catholic. If you are going to appeal to natural reason, and use the arguments of skepticism and postmodernism against Protestants, then you need to understand that both skepticism and postmodernism destroy Catholicism as well. However, given the arguments I have seen against Sola Scriptura, on this board and other places, I don’t see how Mick’s argument can be avoided, if you are going to appeal to natural reason, and take the arguments against Sola Scriptura that rely on skepticism and postmodernism.

 

[SSTeacher]

Faulty premises:
SSTeacher;5446122:

If it is impossible for an objective observer to know conclusively which Christian tradition is 100% right

result in faulty conclusions:

Universalism is true and that all

will eventually be saved?

I agree that faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions but I intended the thought adduced to be understood as one that might possibly be expressed by an objective observer i.e. an outsider sincerely seeking truth who looks into Christendom from the outside and, noting the chaos and the cacophony and the contradictions, experiences great uncertainty.

I should also like to point out that I drew no conclusion. I merely posed a hypothetical question.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Publisher]

For me, I embrace universalism not necessarily because scripture teaches it emphatically…but based on what I believe about the nature of God and the work of Christ.

A simplistic overview is…“God was in Christ reconcilling the world to Himself.” “God is not willing that any should perish but all come to repentance.” “Every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord.” “All things will be placed under his feet.” “God so love the world…”

The will of God will not be frustrated. His will is that all creation be reconcilled to Himself. While there are portions of scripture which indicate a punishment…there are others…such as those above some of us “universalists” call “minority voices” that allude to God one day completing what is His will…reconciling all to Himself.

“Though I make my bed in the lowest Hell…behold You are there…” “Where can I go from your Presence…” “His Mercy endures forever.”…“His mercy is made new each day.”

This does not mitigate the seriousness of sin…but it tells me the love and mercy of God is endless…and endlessy patient. Eventually He will do what he set out to do…“If I be lifted up, I will draw ALL men to myself.”

I do not believe the scriptures speak as a unified whole…but with differing voices and understandings. They are a product of layer upon layer of tradition…they did not arrive to us whole but compiled and redacted by various authors and editors. They are not “infallible”.

While I understand “Universalism” is not a popular view among most “orthodox” believers…it is an option for those who wish to entertain such ideas.

If the belief in eternal hell and punishment fit one’s belief system…wonderful…but it does not fit mine…I’d rather trust in God’s mercy and love and let Him dispense justice how He sees fit and believe eventually out of His love and mercy will find a way to bring all back to His Presence…it may take a larger portion of eternity…but He will not allow His will to be frustrated.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi Jon,

Well, Mick, universalism, to me, implies that all will be saved and it really doesn’t matter what you believe.

I don’t see it quite like that. Universalism certainly implies that everybody will be saved but I don’t think it follows that such a view necessarily has to be accompanied by the idea that it doesn’t matter what one believes. What leads you to connect the two ideas?

So, there’s no sense spending time on unimportant things like doctrine, and wasteful pursuits like ecumenism.

Well, that notion logically follows from your idea that embracing Universalism necessarily entails saying it doesn’t matter what one believes. But if your idea is faulty and Universalism doesn’t entail saying any such thing would you still have an objection to Universalism?

IOW, there is a complacency implied in universalism that I reject.

Jon

Publisher reckons there isn’t any complacency.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Mick

I would agree that the judgement of who is sincere and who is not sincere would be left entirely to the Lord. The sad part is that sometimes in discussions on theology and doctrine too-many of us (myself included) are too-quick to take on that role of judge.

Right. So wouldn’t you agree that one who feels drawn to assert the possibility that all are saved is less likely to take on the role of judge that we so love in ourselves and so despise in others?

In the last couple years I’ve been told by several people that I’m going to hell for believing in Catholic teachings. In my heart I believe that most of them - maybe even all of them - mean well, that they care about me. And then there’s the one so full of hatred of all things catholic that I have to ask myself whether ill-will is present there. Take care.

I know an old Methodist lady who euphemistically refers to such individuals as, “sandpaper friends.” Wouldn’t you rather meet a Universalist for whom hell is pretty much a meaningless word and who therefore has no reason to tell you anything other than that the Lord loves you and so he (or she) does too?

Thoughtfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Universalism as you described it seems to hinge on salvation by faith, regardless of sins, and also overlooks the fact that people commit sins that they know are sins.

Sin is the central problem of the human race. I don’t see why a tendency toward Universalism should lead a Christian to rethink his or her ideas about sin.

Lastly, it overlooks that you have some knowledge “written on your heart”.

How so?

Also, If everyone was saved, what would be the point of hell existing? Since we know that exists, I don’t think universalism is true.

I don’t think I’d go so far as to say there is no hell but I’d respectfully suggest – merely as a possibility – that God’s plan of salvation involves the eventual salvation of every person that He has created in His image since the beginning of time.

Optimistically,
Mick

 

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by Timbothefiveth
Also, If everyone was saved, what would be the point of hell existing? Since we know that exists, I don’t think universalism is true.

An “empty hell” would be a grand memorial to the astounding mercy and love and patience of the God who “reconciled the world to Himself” and who’s work “drew all men to Himself”.

 

[Contarini]

Indeed it would. But the judgment as to who is sincere and who is not sincere is left entirely in the province of the Lord. And as we’ve been commanded not to judge I think that allows me to pose the reasonable question that as far as we are able to ascertain perhaps everybody will be saved?

I would agree that we cannot state with certainty that there will be at least one human being in hell when all’s said and done.

Edwin

 

[SSTeacher]

I can only conclude that, while a certain “sincerity based universalism” is undoubtedly employed by Our Lord, that it must have limits.

Peace
James

Hi James,

By whom do you think these limits would be imposed? Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Mick,

This is why Dr. Cornelius Van Til taught that knowledge does not come from continuing to ask “how do you know,” and finding justification for everything, because no one can keep justifying everything unto infinity. Dr. Van Til argued that knowledge comes from the fact that we are created in God’s image, and that he has condescended to us in order to reveal himself to us. Because of that, we are able to think and reason in a proper fashion.

However, the problem is that sin has come into the world, and caused us to supress the knowledge of the truth. However, we still have to rely upon God’s existence, for we live and move and have our being in him. Hence, we will be forced to hold contradictory or arbitrary beliefs that cannot be reconciled with our most fundamental presuppositions about reality.

That is why Dr. Van Til took this principle, and applied Kant’s transcendental argument to this very discussion. He argued that a Christian presupposes God’s voluntary condescention, and thus, our knowledge is not dependent upon natural reason, but upon God himself. Therefore, that is the foundation of our knowledge. Hence, any departure from that is going to require a self contradiction in terms of the most basic assumptions about reality.

I can see, however, how this would be a problem for a Roman Catholic. If you are going to appeal to natural reason, and use the arguments of skepticism and postmodernism against Protestants, then you need to understand that both skepticism and postmodernism destroy Catholicism as well. However, given the arguments I have seen against Sola Scriptura, on this board and other places, I don’t see how Mick’s argument can be avoided, if you are going to appeal to natural reason, and take the arguments against Sola Scriptura that rely on skepticism and postmodernism.

Hi Adam,

Welcome to CAF and thanks for your contribution. I assume from your stated affiliation that you formally adhere to Calvinist doctrine but perhaps you’ll allow me to ask if you are personally drawn toward the idea of Universalism?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,

By whom do you think these limits would be imposed? Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

Respectfully,
Mick

While I don’t have teh time to properly expound on my answer here the Short answer to your question is that We will. It is we who will seperate ourselves from Christ’s Love and the Love of the Father.

Peace
James