Universalism

[pnggrad79]

I just picked up a book entitled, If God is Love by Phillip Gulley and James Mulholland, and he goes through his premise that all will be saved by grace. He makes some persuasive arguments, and severely maligns the teachings of his fundamentalist background. However, I think he glosses over a lot of things that although I have pretty much left my Southern Baptist roots ,because I believe they preach grace but don't practice it, he gives little attention to. He expounds upon God's grace over and over. But I just want everyone's opinion on his basic premise-

Do you think God will save everyone ultimately?
Is there a hell that people will go to that reject Christ?

Just curious!

[NathanATX]

I don't think there is anything to "save" people from in an eternal perspective.

I think the message of Christ was simple: Love God & love your neighbor.

That is the key to having heaven on earth right now.

.......
I'm definitely leaning towards a universalist point of view, but I haven't devoted enough study to say "that's what I believe" confidently. It does speak to my spirit though.

Check out Carlton Pearson's presentation of this doctrine which he calls, "The doctrine of inclusion." http://www.inclusion.ws/faq1.htm
www.higherd.org

[awediot]

From a Tee. What ya think?

[revtj]

I am a Universalist. My M. Div. thesis was, "Toward a New Universalism: Understanding a Global Theological Approach." My main sources were Paul Tillich and a guy named Kreiger. Would be happy to answer any questions or join the discussions if anyone is interested...

[awediot]

thanks... I do have, have had, and am willing to have had a few... Is Universalism pantheistic, in that it believes all religions are basically equal roads leading to the same Rome? Is Jesus viewed as one of many enlightened teachers and prophets, but the claim of unique divinity, and to be The only way is falsely out of context? Is His second coming wholey symbolic, to be all in our heads, and what of Heaven and Hell? ... Please submit your first volume of answers on my desk no later than the end of time...

[revtj]

Awediot, you are a unique person, that's for sure.

A quick answer to your question...NO, a credible Universalism grounded in historical theology, does not seek to blur all religions into one, nor does it seek to delete significant theological items that would seem to be in conflict within 2 or more religions.

Rather, universalism would ask that the christian BE and DO what christians are called by the best of their faith tradition to be and do. It would ask the same of all others.

As a christian, universalism takes seriously Jesus' admonishment to judge not that you not be judged; for with the same measure with which you judge shall you also be judged. That means I would not consign any person of another faith to "hell" (not a universalist tenet) because I would not desire to be judged so harshly myself.

[Daniel]

How very strange. I recently posted a message to cubby on another thread and related the following story:

In my undergraduate days, the writer Madeleine L'Engle (A Wrinkle in Time) was invited to my campus- Evangel College (this was in 1980). I was shocked that several students stood up and challenged her on what seems to them to be her 'universalism' (God draws all to himself in the end- ie. there ain't no hell- at least not in the End) in her book. Well. That was something. I had to look up the word. And when I did, I realized that I was a Universalist.

That still holds true. I found it repugnant that my fellow students were so eager to send people to hell.

Now, there is another take on this matter, and that comes from Christian Spiritualism (yes- there are such people- though I do not confess to having more than a passing knowledge of their beliefs.) They assert that Christianity embraced the idea of reincarnation well into the 3rd century and posit that one inhabits the result of one's thoughts and actions after death- you just go to the level of the sum of your thoughts and actions. Their cosmology takes into account, however, that there many levels to the afterlife. This perspective has some similarities within the teachings of various eastern philosophies. Both camps- to be overly reductive- believe that what we experience is dualistic in nature: good and bad, light and dark etc. etc. For them the ultimate reality is something else entirely and perhaps expressed in the thought: "If God is love- how can he be anything else?"

[awediot]

revtj, as you normies get wierder by the hour, I take that as a compliment. The world as a hole is becoming something I no longer care to be embraced by... (typo intended)

Originally Posted by revtj

...a credible Universalism grounded in historical theology, does not seek to blur all religions into one, nor does it seek to delete significant theological items that would seem to be in conflict within 2 or more religions.

(emphasis my own)... You seem very careful to define what authentic universalism is, the very thing the term seems to want to transcend... (just an observation) Does Uism seek to emphasize the SEEM, rather than delete significant differences, implying it knows the core is merely corupted by culture? Some of those differences are total and cannot be incorporated into a broader belief. What does it do with them?

Originally Posted by revtj

Rather, universalism would ask that the christian BE and DO what christians are called by the best of their faith tradition to be and do. It would ask the same of all others.

Even if they are to convert eachother? How can it evenly support both sides?

Does the mere mention of hell label the one who brought it up as judgemental?

Originally Posted by daniel

I found it repugnant that my fellow students were so eager to send people to hell.

Good thing they can't...That is too bad and I am sorry that they made such an impression. I have never met such a person... I have met many who read into the disagreements of Christians a personal damnation and scream Judge out of a guilt complex. Aren't we to judge actions and thoughts and motives, but leave the eternal Soul to God, knowing our own life to be mutually suspect and open to correction? It is odd that the warning to not judge seems to create so many...

I believe God made love from something better. God being love is overly reductive. What do you think people mean when they say that? (it is all over this site) Why is it so comforting? How much hope is put into its unconditionality?

Hell is merely the alternative; hard fought for, preferable, triumphant and proudly locked from the inside... God sends no one there.

[revtj]

Awe...

Theologically, Origen was the first christian universalist. He merged budding christian theology with gnosticism in the 2nd century CE. He was martyred and his books burned. The only way we know what he believed is through the refutations his detractors published (and were not burned.)

So, you can understand my desire not to pursue the issue to the stake. Universalism is a delightful theological position worth exploring if you so desire. Like absolutely every proposition, (e.g. the sky is blue), it can be deconstructed, linked it to Nazism, and provide brand new reasons to hate others.

But that is the opposite of what Universalism does. It draws a circle large enough that all are included. Nathan's links are a good place to start. Googling univeralism would render pages of data.

A good test for all theological belief, it seems to me, is whether it binds me to my neighbor or sets me against them. I think that's biblical hermeneutics. Happy hunting!

[awediot]

I have been interested in understanding it, and seeing where it differs from my assumptions. I hadn't started my deconstruction yet and am sad to see you leap to the idea I may be out to link it to some atrocity. From what little I know of it as an organization, the overall theory is attractive and I was seeking clarification as to some of the problems I may have with its theology.

I think any belief can be used to bind or divide and provide reasons to hate. Just curious what parameters Universalism uses to tell the difference... I guess Google I will, but I'm pretty sure what I'll find. Its just older and called by a different name.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

It draws a circle large enough that all are included.

A good test for all theological belief, it seems to me, is whether it binds me to my neighbor or sets me against them. I think that's biblical hermeneutics. Happy hunting!

I like this thought very much. I've been thinking of Zen matters a lot lately (this has been cropping up in my posts which may cause alarm for some perhaps) and what came to mind when I read the sentence above was the image that is used in Zen thought of a large circle which is used to symbolize a state of unity- that is -non-dual consciousness.

This may be the simplist way to think about the matter. Everyone gets into the circle- noone left out. How big is God's love after all?

[awediot]

Universalism < > Unitarianism...

Jumped in prematurely. I have been getting a little sensitive about the willingness to pounce on the ultra Rightous Right wing Christian, and the lay Christian, and then just christianity with out making any distinction. Many of the modern ideas liberate the Hell out it, re-re-reinterpret any meaning or urgency from it and then kindly take it under thier wing as a misguided, sick child that is slow to learn. It is not uncommon to hear one imply they are Buddhist and Christian and Hindu because they are simply "spiritual", above the labels and grasp the core Truths behind them all... I am glad to have my presumptions corrected (thanks Nathan for the links and sparked curiousity) and it is nice to see the belief can be broadened with out being diluted...

[Lydia]

Yes, I'm a Universalist. My SO has an entire website dedicated to the subject: http://drewc.net

[revtj]

That's a lot of great links on christian universalism. I enjoyed it very much.

I have a couple of things left to say...

While the unitarian universalist association absorbed the majority of christian universalist congregations left in America in ca. 1960, that does not mean that UUA congregations are necessarily friendly homes for christian universalists. The vast majority of UUA members & congregations are not christian, and the vast majority of their congregations have difficulty welcoming folks with decidedly christian testimonies of faith. This has presented a problem to more than a few gay christians...

Also, I think there is a need to consider Universalism outside of the christian box. It is really not a theological bonus to inform jews and hindus that christ has saved them by default; indeed, it is insulting and imperialistic to co-opt their religion with expansive views of universalist christendom.

To me this is the great theological puzzle of the 21st century. While I am satisfied with how I have worked it out theologically, how (or will?) the peoples of this planet, in these fierce times, adapt to a peaceful coexistence with or without universalism? And what good is a theology that isn't globally relevant these days?

[awediot]

Thanks again for the links. This does address some of my questions and my own deconstructing of past indoctrination has lead me to believe much of what is described here (mostly the sadistic nature of Hell being contrary to the nature of God). I have read up on some of the ideas and enjoy them very much, however a few answers so far have eluded me.

I realize it is not a black and white perspective and please don't take my curiosity as an effort to find some fatal flaw I can pounce on to prove just how right I am. The answers are probably there, but my capacity to research takes time and I do not want to let this thread fade away quite yet because I believe it is important.

The idea of ALL being saved eventually, is, ideal (not -istic), and I pray it is somehow true. It does however bring up a couple problems; namely regarding free will. There certainly are examples of the uber-rebellious soul who (out of defiant, calculated and delusional "ignorance" and bloated ego) utterly REFUSE to bend and be saved, and the more evidence is the more they use to further distance themselves. In fact the human race as a whole seems to be moving away from any form of Christianity (via the New Age pantheistic view I mentioned before) The unlimited time needed for the last soul to voluntarily believe would seem to postpone the goal of redeeming all things forever, and "unfairly" drag out this temporary state of sinful pains. At what point are these last, obnoxious spirits force fed the common sense so the rest of us can move on?

This expansion of time as required by free will also opens the Pandora's box I see in reincarnation, in that we are given unlimited opportunity to come to God, and guaranteed salvation, have no reason not to milk the pleasures of the flesh for all they are worth... It brings to mind Bart Simpson's theology to, "live a life of sin with a quicky deathbed repentance." To which the minister in the room replied "hmm, hadn't thought of that." ... It is in having the grace of God expanded forever and the chance for salvation guaranteed that I have a problem getting beyond.

As for myself, I wonder if God may accept being defeated by such souls, allowing freewill its triumph and not punish them eternally, but allow them to be unmade, as they prefer, knowingly, painlessly, they choose to just be no more?

[revtj]

Yeah, awe, I see where you are coming from and I appreciate your struggle. It's always been true that if you want to stump a universalist, ask them what happens to a Hitler.

American universalism was a reaction to puritan calvinism's view of the total depravity of human beings. They emphasized the moral neutrality (tabula rasa) of baby humans and put the effects of sin in the environment, thus emphasizing the free will of people to choose between good & evil.

Ultra-universalists said Christ accomplished salvation for all on the cross, no exceptions. Other universalists gravitated toward ideas like purgatory and the phrase in the epistles which states that Christ descended into hell & preached to the souls there. Modern day christian universalists would say that Christ emptied out hell & saved them all. This view is made all the more sensible if you believe that it is cosmic, occurring outside space & time, even as God/Christ transcend space & time.

Gets pretty speculative but it can be backed up with scripture. But then almost every weird idea can also be backed up with scripture.

Christian universalism has its apex in Karl Barth, not a favorite theologian of mine, whose imperial Christ becomes all in all, absorbing everything in the universe, like an episode of South Park. Matthew Fox handles it a lot better but it still means the whole universe is forcibly christianized by God.

My own perspective resembles the traditional one offered by Unitarian Universalists in the concept of the 'cathedral of the world.' In this imagery every religion looks at the sacred through their native religious perspective: the god we see is the same, but how we see god is different, unique to our own background, experience, & culture. I like this because it puts the onus of living ethically and spiritually on the individual and does not claim one religion is better or more correct than another. They are all windows through which we see, or seek to see, God.

We also see the hells created in this life (for the poor & oppressed, for example) as taking precedence over any theology of punishment in the/an afterlife. I think this is consistent with Jesus' teaching, "When you did it to the least of these, you did it unto me..."

If we would focus on these hells we would come a lot closer to ushering in the reign of god than preaching fire & brimstone ever has. This is a cornerstone concept of the social gospel, for which I believe the church moans and aches for a new emergence of today, seeing salvation as socially incarnated, or as the less learned clergy of the American Universalists said, "None of us is saved until all of us is saved."

[Eugene]

I am not a universalist simply because I do not think it can be reconciled to the Bible nor to a theology that takes the Bible seriously. It also seems counter to man's innate sense of justice and fair play.

In my opinion, a much simpler solution to the offensive doctrine of eternal punishment is annihilationism.

[schoolboi]

Belief in the ultimate reconciliation of all things is not a new doctrine. Please check out this link to an Eastern Orthodox understanding of apokatastasis.

[awediot]

"None of us is saved until all of us is saved."

Nice sentiment, but YIKES , it gives the unsaved WAY to much power. As I don't believe sin or the denial of God is innocently ignorant, allowing those in rebellion aganst Him the power to hold my salvation hostage untill they feel like coming around seems as unfair of God as the flaws which this expanded view attempts to alleviate in the first place. The cure is worse than the disease. I can hope and pray for them without being chained to them.

...the god we see is the same, but how we see god is different, unique to our own background, experience, & culture....does not claim one religion is better or more correct than another...

Called by any other name, this is the impossible homogenization I feared in my first post...

And what good is a theology that isn't globally relevant these days?

If it loses its heart and soul in the desperate attempt to become political, none at all...

Thanks for the info...(and thank you too schoolboi. Aspects of the idea I find I have already accepted.)

[schoolboi]

Re: "none of us is saved until all of us is saved"

Originally Posted by awediot

Nice sentiment, but YIKES , it gives the unsaved WAY to much power. As I don't believe sin or the denial of God is innocently ignorant, allowing those in rebellion aganst Him the power to hold my salvation hostage untill they feel like coming around seems as unfair of God as the flaws which this expanded view attempts to alleviate in the first place. The cure is worse than the disease. I can hope and pray for them without being chained to them.

I think the actual sentiment of the "none of us is saved until all of us is saved" statement is an allusion to Dr. King’s statement, “their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.”

On a different note:

In discussing who will be saved I believe it is also important to discuss what salvation is and what it is not. I grew up with a very Western Christian/Augustinian view of salvation. That being everyone is born into sin and God required a blood atonement to remove the effects of sin. This few has humanity being saved from something.

I now lean toward an Eastern Christian view of salvation called deification or theosis. This idea of salvation has humanity being saved to something rather then from something. Here are some great links exploring this idea more:


Theosis
Salvation as Transfiguration
Likeness to God as Far as Possible
Theosis and the Work of Christ