Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum

Zach

Aug 13, 07 - 1:06 AM

Hell as "essential doctrine"

In case we are wrong (which I do not believe we are, though I am not certain), I have some concerns about the level of danger involved in falsely proclaiming universalism.

I don't accept the argument that removing the existence of an eternal hell will interfere with evangelism; though it is true that it provides an incentive both to accept the Gospel and to proclaim it, it also has the effect of making Christians more embarrassed about their faith, and of turning away many who are repulsed by the doctrine of endless torment. We simply do not know enough to say whether one effect is more significant than the other, or whether they may not even cancel each other out.

My concern is more about the personal salvation of those who believe in universalism. I realize there is nothing in the Bible which says that one must believe in endless torment to be saved; it is possible that one could take that as part of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15); but in that chapter Paul's arguments seem to focus specifically on denying the eternal life of believers, and especially on denying the reality of Christ's bodily resurrection. However, it seems that we should want to be absolutely certain on this point, and it is difficult to know what Paul might have written about universalism (assuming you reject the viewpoint that he espoused it).

There is also the argument that God will move the regenerate to believe in proper doctrine. For instance, Matt Slick has this to say: 'Furthermore, I believe that a true Christian (if he erringly holds to universalism), will move away from that error because the Holy Spirit will work the truth within him. Eventually, he will repent and reject it.
Also, I would say that a universalist who openly and knowingly affirms universal salvation after having been clearly taught the truth in scripture, and yet continues to hold to a "second chance" doctrine (as some do), and/or punishment in the afterlife for a duration of time and then salvation occurs, is not a Christian. It is these issues that are so serious as to deny justification by faith. But, let me say it one more time, I believe that there can be ignorant people who erringly hold to universalism, who have not thought universalism's position through properly, and have not been properly exposed to the true teachings of the Bible who can be saved. I believe it is "possible" for them to be saved in spite of their inconsistency.' (http://www.carm.org/uni/christianbeuni.htm)

On the other hand, there are the famous universalists of the past: Origen; Gregory of Nyssa; Clement of Alexandria; Elhanan Winchester; and so on. Even Augustine does not claim that the universalists are not Christians when he argues against them. I'm just not really sure what to think about this issue.

Mike Burke

Aug 13th, 2007 - 2:38 AM

Re: Hell as "essential doctrine"

[Quote]...it is difficult to know what Paul might have written about universalism (assuming you reject the viewpoint that he espoused it) [unquote]

Maybe he didn't shout it (and for good reason), but Paul was a trained Theologian inspired by The Holy Spirit.

I don't think he could have penned Colossians 1:16 & 20 (or 1 Cor. 15:28) without realizing the implications.

Can you imagine any of those opposed to Universal Salvation today writing what he did?

[Quote]On the other hand, there are the famous universalists of the past: Origen; Gregory of Nyssa; Clement of Alexandria; Elhanan Winchester; and so on. Even Augustine does not claim that the universalists are not Christians when he argues against them. [unquote]

Gregory of Nyssa never retracted what he taught regarding Universal Salvation, and as far as I know, Augustine never recanted his belief in eternal punishment (although in some of his arguments with the Manicheans, he seemed to imply that evil would cease to exist, and I understand he once wrote "I would not..close the door to a more careful consideration as to the punishments of the lost, and the sense in which they are in Scripture called eternal.")

Perhaps all of us aren't led to all the truth about every non-essential doctrine on this side of the resurrection (and if we were, wouldn't we all end up in the same denomination before we died?)

That said, I do tend to view hell (in the sense of punishment for unrepented sin) as an essential doctrine, and I believe "Death and Glory" universalism is pure heresy.

[Quote] I don't accept the argument that removing the existence of an eternal hell will interfere with evangelism; though it is true that it provides an incentive both to accept the Gospel and to proclaim it, it also has the effect of making Christians more embarrassed about their faith, and of turning away many who are repulsed by the doctrine of endless torment. [unquote]

Very well said (and very true.)

[Quote] I'm just not really sure what to think about this issue. [unquote]

Take what you need and leave the rest (with God.)

Peace.

Ed Smith

Aug 13th, 2007 - 9:26 AM

Re: Hell as "essential doctrine"

There is a tendency among many to make out the doctrines they love so much to be essential doctrines, even essential to salvation. Doing so is highly unscriptural, since we see repeatedly statements to the effect that everyone who believes in Jesus is saved. It is also a dilution of the belief in Christ alone for salvation. Salvation does not come from giving assent to the correct list of facts, even facts about Christ himself, but by a trust in the person of Christ to save you. As to why the doctrine of an eternal hell would be such a beloved thing to some that they even want to put it on the list of things one must agree to in order to obtain salvation is beyond me. I can't help but question the mental health of those who do wish it to be essential.

Matt Slick's contention that a true Christian will soon be led away from universalism by the Holy Spirit is a bit irrational as well, even if one assumes it is false. If that is so, why shouldn't it apply to other truths as well? Most recognize that there have been both sincere Christian Calvinists and sincere Christian Arminians who lived long, spririt-filled lives, though at least one of those two contradictory theological systems must be way off.

As for how mainstream a universalist might be, take a look at the paper whose link I posted on the other thread whose author also wrote the book "The Evangelical Universalist."

http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2006/11/gregory_macdona.html

Best regards to all,

Ed

pam

Aug 13th, 2007 - 11:17 AM

Re: Hell as "essential doctrine"

Labels can confuse us all and I still struggle a bit at adopting the label of Christian Universalist. I have known Christ for over thirty years and He is the passion of my life.

I do believe that Jesus died for the sins of all that all would be reconciled to God. There is no other way to be reconciled. Salvation, I believe from scripture, belongs solely to the church just as the Law belongs to the Jews. They are integral to one another but seperate works of God within His greater plan of final restoration. I do not believe that all will enjoy Salvation during this present age of grace but just as the Law given to the Jews was a precursor to my being able to recieve Grace, I believe that my Salvation is a precursor to the final restoration of all to God. In saying all, I mean all humankind and all of the Creation. When death dies (which is the second death) there will be nothing to which God has given life that will be lost to Him. The victory won in Jesus Christ will be complete and not partial. Even the gates of 'hell' will not prevail against Christ and His church.

I do believe that those who reject Jesus as the Christ will suffer but I also know that God desires that NONE should perish but that ALL come to repentance. I have known Jesus for only a short time in God's economy but I know well through Jesus the God is able to accomplish all that He desires and He will. The only hope for humankind is in God's Mercy and the desire for us born from that Divine Mercy. That is where I place all of my hope for myself and for all of my kind.

I did not choose my theological understanding of scripture and of the workings of God but rather I have grown into it over time. I really don't think I could teach it to any one, even if someone really took the time to examine all of the scriptural proofs of my beliefs that I DO have but rather it comes from a greater revelation of Jesus Christ as each believer comes to know Him better.I did not read literature that promotes Universalism and then adopt that stance rather, it came as I have gained a greater overview of the whole of scripture as it has been revealed to me during the process of my own sanctification under the direct tutelege of the Holy Spirit.

As far as evangelism is concerned, I don't believe in eternal tormet for I find it to be totally unscriptural but there is nothing I love more than to talk about Jesus and nothing that floats my boat quite like seeing others come to faith in Christ!

Pam

Ed Smith

Aug 13th, 2007 - 1:15 PM

Re: Hell as "essential doctrine"

Additionally, so far as the "deterrent to evangelism" concern goes, the idea of eternal torment may be a much greater deterrent to winning the lost to Christ. If a person does not see their need for a savior from sin, regardless of whether they'd prefer not to be tormented forever, they aren't ready to rely on Jesus to save them from sin. To accept Jesus as your savior is to accept Him as your savior from *your* sin.

"Call His name Jesus for it is He who will save His people from their sins"--Matt. 1:21

	Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
Return to Website

Author	Comment
Zach Aug 13, 07 - 1:06 AM	Hell as "essential doctrine" In case we are wrong (which I do not believe we are, though I am not certain), I have some concerns about the level of danger involved in falsely proclaiming universalism. I don't accept the argument that removing the existence of an eternal hell will interfere with evangelism; though it is true that it provides an incentive both to accept the Gospel and to proclaim it, it also has the effect of making Christians more embarrassed about their faith, and of turning away many who are repulsed by the doctrine of endless torment. We simply do not know enough to say whether one effect is more significant than the other, or whether they may not even cancel each other out. My concern is more about the personal salvation of those who believe in universalism. I realize there is nothing in the Bible which says that one must believe in endless torment to be saved; it is possible that one could take that as part of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15); but in that chapter Paul's arguments seem to focus specifically on denying the eternal life of believers, and especially on denying the reality of Christ's bodily resurrection. However, it seems that we should want to be absolutely certain on this point, and it is difficult to know what Paul might have written about universalism (assuming you reject the viewpoint that he espoused it). There is also the argument that God will move the regenerate to believe in proper doctrine. For instance, Matt Slick has this to say: 'Furthermore, I believe that a true Christian (if he erringly holds to universalism), will move away from that error because the Holy Spirit will work the truth within him. Eventually, he will repent and reject it. Also, I would say that a universalist who openly and knowingly affirms universal salvation after having been clearly taught the truth in scripture, and yet continues to hold to a "second chance" doctrine (as some do), and/or punishment in the afterlife for a duration of time and then salvation occurs, is not a Christian. It is these issues that are so serious as to deny justification by faith. But, let me say it one more time, I believe that there can be ignorant people who erringly hold to universalism, who have not thought universalism's position through properly, and have not been properly exposed to the true teachings of the Bible who can be saved. I believe it is "possible" for them to be saved in spite of their inconsistency.' (http://www.carm.org/uni/christianbeuni.htm) On the other hand, there are the famous universalists of the past: Origen; Gregory of Nyssa; Clement of Alexandria; Elhanan Winchester; and so on. Even Augustine does not claim that the universalists are not Christians when he argues against them. I'm just not really sure what to think about this issue.
Mike Burke Aug 13th, 2007 - 2:38 AM	Re: Hell as "essential doctrine" [Quote]...it is difficult to know what Paul might have written about universalism (assuming you reject the viewpoint that he espoused it) [unquote] Maybe he didn't shout it (and for good reason), but Paul was a trained Theologian inspired by The Holy Spirit. I don't think he could have penned Colossians 1:16 & 20 (or 1 Cor. 15:28) without realizing the implications. Can you imagine any of those opposed to Universal Salvation today writing what he did? [Quote]On the other hand, there are the famous universalists of the past: Origen; Gregory of Nyssa; Clement of Alexandria; Elhanan Winchester; and so on. Even Augustine does not claim that the universalists are not Christians when he argues against them. [unquote] Gregory of Nyssa never retracted what he taught regarding Universal Salvation, and as far as I know, Augustine never recanted his belief in eternal punishment (although in some of his arguments with the Manicheans, he seemed to imply that evil would cease to exist, and I understand he once wrote "I would not..close the door to a more careful consideration as to the punishments of the lost, and the sense in which they are in Scripture called eternal.") Perhaps all of us aren't led to all the truth about every non-essential doctrine on this side of the resurrection (and if we were, wouldn't we all end up in the same denomination before we died?) That said, I do tend to view hell (in the sense of punishment for unrepented sin) as an essential doctrine, and I believe "Death and Glory" universalism is pure heresy. [Quote] I don't accept the argument that removing the existence of an eternal hell will interfere with evangelism; though it is true that it provides an incentive both to accept the Gospel and to proclaim it, it also has the effect of making Christians more embarrassed about their faith, and of turning away many who are repulsed by the doctrine of endless torment. [unquote] Very well said (and very true.) [Quote] I'm just not really sure what to think about this issue. [unquote] Take what you need and leave the rest (with God.) Peace. Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
Ed Smith Aug 13th, 2007 - 9:26 AM	Re: Hell as "essential doctrine" There is a tendency among many to make out the doctrines they love so much to be essential doctrines, even essential to salvation. Doing so is highly unscriptural, since we see repeatedly statements to the effect that everyone who believes in Jesus is saved. It is also a dilution of the belief in Christ alone for salvation. Salvation does not come from giving assent to the correct list of facts, even facts about Christ himself, but by a trust in the person of Christ to save you. As to why the doctrine of an eternal hell would be such a beloved thing to some that they even want to put it on the list of things one must agree to in order to obtain salvation is beyond me. I can't help but question the mental health of those who do wish it to be essential. Matt Slick's contention that a true Christian will soon be led away from universalism by the Holy Spirit is a bit irrational as well, even if one assumes it is false. If that is so, why shouldn't it apply to other truths as well? Most recognize that there have been both sincere Christian Calvinists and sincere Christian Arminians who lived long, spririt-filled lives, though at least one of those two contradictory theological systems must be way off. As for how mainstream a universalist might be, take a look at the paper whose link I posted on the other thread whose author also wrote the book "The Evangelical Universalist." http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2006/11/gregory_macdona.html Best regards to all, Ed Email: packcover@hotmail.com
pam Aug 13th, 2007 - 11:17 AM	Re: Hell as "essential doctrine" Labels can confuse us all and I still struggle a bit at adopting the label of Christian Universalist. I have known Christ for over thirty years and He is the passion of my life. I do believe that Jesus died for the sins of all that all would be reconciled to God. There is no other way to be reconciled. Salvation, I believe from scripture, belongs solely to the church just as the Law belongs to the Jews. They are integral to one another but seperate works of God within His greater plan of final restoration. I do not believe that all will enjoy Salvation during this present age of grace but just as the Law given to the Jews was a precursor to my being able to recieve Grace, I believe that my Salvation is a precursor to the final restoration of all to God. In saying all, I mean all humankind and all of the Creation. When death dies (which is the second death) there will be nothing to which God has given life that will be lost to Him. The victory won in Jesus Christ will be complete and not partial. Even the gates of 'hell' will not prevail against Christ and His church. I do believe that those who reject Jesus as the Christ will suffer but I also know that God desires that NONE should perish but that ALL come to repentance. I have known Jesus for only a short time in God's economy but I know well through Jesus the God is able to accomplish all that He desires and He will. The only hope for humankind is in God's Mercy and the desire for us born from that Divine Mercy. That is where I place all of my hope for myself and for all of my kind. I did not choose my theological understanding of scripture and of the workings of God but rather I have grown into it over time. I really don't think I could teach it to any one, even if someone really took the time to examine all of the scriptural proofs of my beliefs that I DO have but rather it comes from a greater revelation of Jesus Christ as each believer comes to know Him better.I did not read literature that promotes Universalism and then adopt that stance rather, it came as I have gained a greater overview of the whole of scripture as it has been revealed to me during the process of my own sanctification under the direct tutelege of the Holy Spirit. As far as evangelism is concerned, I don't believe in eternal tormet for I find it to be totally unscriptural but there is nothing I love more than to talk about Jesus and nothing that floats my boat quite like seeing others come to faith in Christ! Pam Email: pamwitzemann@yahoo.com
Ed Smith Aug 13th, 2007 - 1:15 PM	Re: Hell as "essential doctrine" Additionally, so far as the "deterrent to evangelism" concern goes, the idea of eternal torment may be a much greater deterrent to winning the lost to Christ. If a person does not see their need for a savior from sin, regardless of whether they'd prefer not to be tormented forever, they aren't ready to rely on Jesus to save them from sin. To accept Jesus as your savior is to accept Him as your savior from your sin. "Call His name Jesus for it is He who will save His people from their sins"--Matt. 1:21 Email: packcover@hotmail.com