The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Evangelical Universalist Isolation?

Evangelical Universalism
#1

I first started considering Evangelical Universalism (EU) because I began to realize that when the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment is combined with the call to love our neighbor as ourselves, it either :

       1.	leads us to a virtual hell on earth as we fear for those who are not yet saved *or* 
       2.	cauterizes our feelings (John Stott) *or*
       3.	causes us to crack under the strain (John Stott).

In addition, simple logic dictates that the joy of heaven will be undermined by our loving memories of lost souls unless we embrace an absurdity, such as:

A. “While experiencing the glory of God on Earth motivates us to love and be concerned for unsaved souls (as God feels now), encountering the glory of God in Heaven will motivate us to:
…i. hate the unsaved or at least no longer care about them (as God will feel then)
…ii. rejoice over their never ending damnation as it enhances our appreciation of our happy state."”

B. “The qualities we love in non-Christians are just an illusion as they are merely the result of God’s
common grace working within them. Therefore, when we see them beyond the grave, in the absence of
common grace, we will see them as they really are and no longer have any love or concern for them.”

C. “In Heaven, the memories of those we loved upon this earth will be altered or erased from our minds. Hence, in the next life an illusion is created in our minds in order to preserve our Heavenly bliss.”

When I was first saved, Christianity was the greatest joy as it promised me eternal life with God. However, as God motivated and commanded me to truly love others, saved and unsaved alike, it rendered my life a nightmare once again.

The simple thing to do would be to just become an Evangelical Universalist and start viewing everybody as my eventual brother or sister in Christ. However, it is difficult to leave the traditional doctrine of Hell when it has been ingrained in me for so many years, even before I was saved. Moreover, it is painful to contemplate what might happen to the fellowship I presently have with other Christians, who are all traditionalists.

I know that many believers in EU remain in their non-Universalist Christian churches. In fact, Gregory MacDonald discourages the formation of EU churches. Yet how is it possible to have genuine deep Christian fellowship with people who:

  1. you believe endorse a doctrine of misery that only promises to make things more miserable as we grow closer to Christ and learn to love the unsaved more.
  2. you believe endorse an absurd view of heaven that contradicts basic logic, God’s character and His call upon our present attitudes and behaviors
  3. believe you are embracing a heresy, and possibly a damnable heresy.

If I were to accept EU I would be doing so because I find it scripturally plausible and I find the traditional view to be philosophically horrifying.

  • Is there a way to view the traditional doctrine on more tolerable terms and thus feel more comfortable maintaining fellowship with traditionalists (and especially those in my church)?
  • Has embracing EU led you to another church than the one you were in?
  • If so, where or what kind of church?
  • Are there Evangelical churches that allow for Universalism without comprising many other doctrines that traditional Evangelicals consider orthodox?
  • I do not want to be alone. Has anybody else experienced these same apprehensions?
Out In The Open
#2

firedup ~

hey, brother. i’m not quite a universalist just yet… but a lot of what you’re saying and expressing concern over sounds familiar.

the Bible tells me that Christ, in whom the fullness of God dwelt bodily, died to reconcile all things to Himself, through His sacrifice on the cross (Colossians 1:19-20). i trust that a God who made all men and women in His image, and whose prime characteristic is agape love, is able, if He wills it, to save all. also, see 1 Timothy 4:9-10.

as to how we fellowship with other believers in Christ, in evangelical circles… obsessing about what others believe about hell and divine punishment can become a hell in itself. you’re not alone. i don’t share every belief in common with my congregation, including beliefs about hell, salvation, and the Rapture. but i know these people love Christ, love the Word, and do their best with God’s help to live prayerful, fruitful, faithful Christian lives, same as i do.

as to contemporary churches which teach universalism, or hold it as a possibility, i don’t know of any conservative, Protestant denominations that officially do. i’ve heard the Eastern Orthodox Church holds out universal salvation as a possibility, but of course many of their practices and beliefs differ greatly from what we see in Evangelical Protestantism. you may find yourself an odd man out in any evangelical congregation. or, through remaining there, you may be given the chance to dialogue about these issues, and share your hope with your fellow Church members.

e.g., i’m a Southern Baptist with a kind of Eastern Orthodox heart. i believe a lot of things which don’t seem to jive with Southern Baptist perspectives or theology, but i’m ok with that. i don’t worry about it too much. i figure, our job is to follow Christ, love the Father with our whole heart, love one another as ourselves, walk the walk, carry our cross, and tell others about the Lord when and where God gives us that chance.

#3

Having been a Baptist pastor, and remaining in our church after I retired and realized that I am a universalist, I have had all of the same apprehensions and difficulties that your piece spelled out. I would be more comfortable in a fellowship of like minded folk, and do not see how Robin Parry appears so comfortable in the traditional context (tho for most of that period he was in the closet). But I stay because I do not have a better alternative, or a place where people at least look at Scripture and the ultimate questions about life. My chagrin at their traditional views is ameliorated a bit by presuming that they just do not see how another (better!) set of beliefs is possible (just as I was once oblivious to a universalist hope), And I sense that some things are even more important than wholesome coherent beliefs, such as the great commandment to love one another. And it strikes me that peoples 'lives are often not so consistent with their beliefs, and they have a better heart and love than I, even if their beliefs are inconsistent with living that way. Itś clear to me that one can believe God is lovingly committed to saving all, and still personally be an unloving jerk. The church provides a living laboratory where God can chip away at that reality in me.

#4

Firedup,
I can very much relate to your concerns. But when you become convinced of something, well, there’s not much else to do but bear the consequences, however unpleasant. Personally, I’d rather believe in the great God who wins all people to himself and be ostracized by everyone I know and love, than believe in the God who mercilessly torments his enemies forever.

And–I should add–that has not always been an easy thing for me to say, nor do I say it lightly, without consideration. It is a thing I have been learning as a result of believing in UR.

Jesus says we must forsake all for him. That doesn’t mean we stop loving people–to follow him is to love people–to give our lives for others (take up your cross), and to love them even when they despise us as ‘sentimental’ or condemn us as heretics for ‘believing man-made doctrines’, etc.

It may or may not be possible to have genuine fellowship–that depends on the people. As we saw with Aaron37 on this forum, some will make a huge issue over the difference, but not everyone will. I don’t make an issue of it–don’t try to make ‘converts’, don’t try to shove it at people, and most people I know actually don’t even know I do believe in UR. That’s not because I’m trying to ‘hide’ my belief–just that I’ve rarely encountered an appropriate time to speak of it–and when I do, it’s often indirect. There’s a time to speak and a time to be silent, as Solomon says. When the ground is properly prepared–then is time to sow the seed.

Addressing your points specifically:

  1. What I have found is that my love for all people had increased dramatically–including toward those who endorse ET. I used to believe as they did–thus I am in no position to condemn them for the same mistaken understanding that I once shared in.

  2. If I see people being illogical, I try to help them see the illogic, if I can. None of us have perfect understanding. We are all children, we all see imperfectly. I have become much more humble because of UR, even as I have felt that my understanding of truth has grown. If I do have a better understanding of truth than others, I also realise that it means nothing by itself. Whatever I have was given to me–there is no room for pride. If I understand all mysteries and have all knowledge, but do not have love–it profits me nothing. Others may be “ahead of me” in other areas.

  3. Isolation is not fun, but it’s not all that bad once you get used to it. :mrgreen: (joking)

I’ve experienced some level of that. It can hurt. I have been learning to not mind so deeply what others think of me–it’s always been a weakness of mine to care too much for others’ opinions of me. But Love flows outward. The more love is perfected, the less it needs to have the same return. When we’re standing firmly planted on the Rock–without needing others to support us–then we are more able to love fully.

I have ever growing faith in the accomplishment of God’s plan for reconciliation. I am growing more patient with people. His grace is sufficient for me. The hardest time I had was with my husband–When I was first beginning to see the truth of UR, I was overflowing with the joy of it–and I didn’t expect the reaction I got from him and from others. I think he was afraid of what I was getting into, and instead of being willing to delve into the scriptures with me to find the truth, he just reacted with hostility. (And that’s not unusual with people) The biggest hurt was that I couldn’t share my joy with him. He was completely unwilling to discuss it at any level, and any attempt to do so on my part ended very badly. :cry: :sunglasses: Well, I “grew up” a lot during that time, and I don’t regret it.

I find ET a horrifying doctrine, but at the same time I don’t think it necessitates a schizm. But it depends.

The church we are part of does not spend much time preaching damnation. The pastors treat hell as a tragic and sorrowful reality, not using it as a weapon to scare people into heaven. If they did, I don’t think we could fellowship there. When we started attending this church, my husband asked one of the pastor if my belief in universalism would be a problem for them. He seemed taken aback and asked me a question or two, but I was still new and hadn’t yet learned to discuss the subject well, so the conversation quickly moved on to other things and has never been brought up since. But I’m sure it’s only a matter of time.

I can’t say that EU led us to another church, but it happens that around the same time I came to believe in EU we left a Reformed Baptist church, because my husband was having a hard time with their legalistic ideas and ways. So it was what we perceived to be incorrect doctrines that caused us to leave. We still are friends with a bunch of folks from that church and don’t recognise any lack of goodwill. But we are aware that some of them think we are less devoted Christians or on the wrong path.

I don’t think Christianity is bound up in doctrinal straightjackets–it is the Way of Life–a practice–a walking with God. I observe faithful Christians walking by the Spirit in spite of believing in ET, and I see universalists walking in the flesh. ET is not a defining line for Christians. People may maintain wrong beliefs and still be on the path that leads to life, or they may believe in UR and yet be on the path that leads to destruction. This is for me one of several factors that enables to tolerate ET doctrines in others. People are often muddled in their theology and practice. They live according to what they really believe–and that may be very different from what they think and say that they believe.

Well that’s my ramble–I hope it’ll do you some little bit of good–but it comes down to each of us having to live according to our convictions of truth, and following our Lord where he leads. “Do not worry about tomorrow, tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of it’s own.”

Sonia

#5

Hi firedup,

I came to believe UR after months of personal study on the issue. When I found myself leaning in that direction I actually contacted several people whom I respect asking them for prayer knowing that they would pray and be pre-dispositioned to think pretty negatively of UR. Whether that was a mistake or not I don’t know. It resulted in their passionate prayers for me but they also came to believe that I was demonically deceived. Of course, they came to that conclusion without ever seriously considering the scriptural evidence in support of UR.

Due to the conflict I experienced because of just discussing UR openly, I was very hesitant to even admit to myself that I had come to believe in UR. And then one Sunday morning during worship the Lord spoke very clearly to me simply but forcefully saying, “Stop Lying!” I understood that the Lord was commanding me to 1) stop lying to myself and 2) stop lying to others. Right or wrong I needed to openly confess to myself and others that I was no longer “just studying” UR, I had actually come to believe it.

Well, this led to a fire-storm in my life that is still burning. Some people lobbied to have me fired from the para-church ministry in which I serve. I was asked to resign from the board of directors of a missions ministry which I helped launch. The church that I’m a member of decided just recently to have an official membership and ressurected an old statement of faith that I didn’t even know existed and make that a requirement for membership - thus stopping me from being a member. And my openess about my change in beliefs has caused many people to think and speak negatively of me. It has even caused significant problems in my marriage.

But you know, the more I think on this, my change in beliefs is not the actual source of these problems. The primary sources are fear, pride, and ignorance. Sadly many Christians are simply ignorant of how to study the Bible, ignorant of what UR really is and how much scripture supports this concept. And what people are ignorant of, they are afraid of. Also, many believer’s faith is in their understanding of scripture and in their own righteousness; and the more one’s trust is in their own understanding of things, the more one is fearful when anything causes them to question their understanding of things. On the other hand, the more one’s faith is in the Lord, the more one is open to growing, even changing their understanding of things. And of course pride is a big problem; people assume that they cannot be wrong and that their tradition cannot be errant. And therefore they refuse to consider any information that doesn’t agree with what they already believe, and they only listen to people who teach what they agree with.

Well, anyhow, it looks like I’ll need to plant a fellowship that is open to UR. More than that, I’m increasingly coming to believe that God is calling me to do this. The reason that this is necessary is not because I don’t accept others who believe differently than I do, but because they do not accept me. I’m very inclusive, open hearted towards others; but sadly, many Christians are not so open, but are exclusive and fearful. I would have preferred to simply serve in an existing fellowship; but I could only do so by signing off on their statement of faith with which I disagree, and being quiet about my actual beliefs.

Concerning the problems I’ve faced by being open about my beliefs, the passages that speak of being blessed because of persecution brings me great comfort and hope. Even if I’m wrong in my beliefs, I’m being obedient by being open and honest about them. And the struggles I’m facing are working in me much more of the character of Christ. They’ve actually revitalized my prayer/fasting/devotional life. They’ve brought problems between my wife and I to a head and are now healing (I pray and believe). And they’ve given me a goal to work towards, a new vision. I envision a fellowship of believers whose foundation is not a statement of faith or systematic theology, but is founded upon a simple and passionate love for God and one another - a truly Transdenominational fellowship based on love, respect, and humility. If you’re in the Nashville TN area in a few years, maybe you can stop in for a visit.

Well, may the Lord bless you in your pursuit of Him/Her.

Blessings,
Sherman

#6

All good comments here.

I have experienced some of this feeling of isolation, and often wonder if this isn’t very much the way the OT prophets felt, especially when they had unpopular messages and/ or those whom God asked to do very strange things.

Nevertheless, I find our ET-believing church to have a good heart in spite of it all (and they certainly don’t emphasize the negative side as some do).
I view it a bit like family, I guess. We all love each other, even if we don’t always agree (or get along).

I agree with Robin. We need the “leaven in the loaf”, so to speak…The bread doesn’t rise if the leaven is kept separate from the rest of the loaf. :wink:

#7

Thanks Grace, Bob, Sonia, Sherman, and Melchizedek for your responses and for your openness. You all make some great points. I realize we must be accepting of each other even if we hold varying beliefs on disputable matters. EU a biggie though. But it seems that it should not be an insurmountable barrier for fellowship. For we all have held and probably still do hold to certain aberrant views that God will correct someday.

As some of you have noted, it is true that many people who profess a traditional belief in hell actually exhibit genuine love and compassion towards our unbelieving world without regard to the supposed possibility that God actually “hates” some (or most) of them. How this can be true, I do not know. Nevertheless, such love is apparent. It makes me wonder if such people really do have a traditional view deep in their hearts. Either that, or perhaps they hold it as such an abstract, inscrutable concept that it really plays no part in their practical theology. In other words, for them it is just a doctrinal statement they profess belief in but file in a figurative drawer somewhere.

It puzzles me why Evangelical Universalism is so often considered to be a heresy, and possibly a damning heresy, by traditionalists. I think Gregory McDonald has sufficiently pointed out that EU can be construed in such a way that does justice to Scripture while at the same time leaving most other evangelical doctrines intact, such as: Creation, the Fall, the utter sinfulness of sin, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, penal-substitutionary atonement, the resurrection of Christ, the 5 solas (the sufficiency of “Scripture alone" teaching that justification is by “grace alone” through “faith alone” because of “Christ alone” and that to the “glory to God alone”), the return of Christ, the resurrection of believers, judgment, and the Nicene Creed. Heck, even the Calvinist TULIP (with Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement referring to those who are saved in this life, as a “firstfruits” of those who will be saved in the next due to an over-arching universal Election and Atonement) as well as the idea that God’s justice demands eternal, everlasting hell, are quite compatible with EU.

I realize that some Universalist proponents deny that eternal, everlasting hell is actually deserved. Some may even hold to the idea that people are saved out of “lake of fire” by paying off their sins as opposed to trusting in the sinless life of Christ. However, just because EU affirms that all remaining unsaved people will eventually be saved in the the next life does not logically require such beliefs, any more than affirming that one person could be saved in this life requires such beliefs.

EU merely teaches that whatever God has or will do for one saved sinner, He will eventually do for all, though it may occur in the next life. I suppose EU would also teach that if God either:
…1. would theoretically choose NOT to do this for a certain person (re Calvinism) or
…2. CANNOT do this for a certain person(re Arminianism),

He would also choose not to bring such a person into existence. In other words, every person God chooses to create is redeemable.

While EU may arguably be inconsistent with certain texts of Scripture, WHAT IS SO HERETICAL ABOUT IT?

#8

Passing through briefly, but I wanted to add in defense of majority concerns of universalism being heresy:

• if it’s false, it is indeed a heresy (even if an inadvertent one) to believe it, insofar as heresy == error. (The two words are very closely related in English derivation, of course.)

• if it is in fact inconsistent with scriptural witness, then biblically speaking it is a heresy. There can be some room for nuance and even agnosticism; but if it is inconsistent, whether recognized or not, it’s a biblical heresy. Also, the proposition of definite inconsistency excludes (or has already fairly accounted for) nuances, and excludes agnosticism on the topic.

• if anyone proposes universalism (or any other doctrine) for purposes of “going their own way” with it, i.e. using it primarily for their own advantage, then that person is now sinning as a heretic – even if the doctrine (whether universalism or any other) happens to be true. This is much worse than being merely in doctrinal error; mere error (or heresy in a merely technical sense) doesn’t have to involve ethical transgression. (This is something many Christians don’t realize, and so that makes matters of heresy more difficult.)

Non-universalists have a right to be concerned; just as we have a right to be concerned about non-universalist soteriology. They have that right, even if we’re right and Calv and Arm soteriologies are wrong. Christ died for our salvation, so anything substantially touching the issue of salvation is by proportion that important.

#9

Before reading the other posts here, these are my thoughts:

I haven’t always gone to the church I am now, but it’s similar in the sense that there is great love there. In my old church, the love was sometimes buried underneath fear, it’s true. However, I think it’s in the Spirit’s nature (as I observed from seeing him move there) to take what he can and expand on it, else there would never be any love to find anywhere. No one’s made perfect in love from day one. It’s a progression.

Once in my old church in Dallas I had to sit through an aggravating lesson on the everlastingness of hell and how “some people” like Carlton Pearson were teaching the unbiblical notion that people could be saved out of it. One guy in particular made a kind of half-joke about how they believe that once their sentence is paid they can be released, and I must’ve had an intense look in my eye because he seemed to cow ever so slightly after glancing in my direction…

I wrestled with speaking up, but I felt it would cause too much of a mindless controversy as people would probably just not understand and be throwing out straw men (as I’d experienced frequently on a message board I’d gone to). Or at least asking a couple thought-provoking questions, but I think that those mostly came to mind later.

Mars Hill is different in that people are much more relaxed and believe in God’s sovereignty because they are Reformed. Thus, love is not buried underneath fear, and they believe in God’s love for everyone and really show it. I honestly don’t know how they get away with it. I wonder what Driscoll’s beliefs are on why some people go to hell, because he teaches that they can’t escape. Could be that he has some kind of midway belief that God only chooses those it is possible to save, I really don’t know. It’s kind of odd to me.

My major issue right now, though, is church structure - official and institutional as opposed to organic and relational. Ultimately my goal is to create an organic, relational community that meets and eats and worships together constantly and meets in homes. New Testament style. And yes, universal reconciliation will be one of the beliefs I will bring to the table.

It can be a two-sided coin - whether people love openly because of a new belief, or whether their beliefs change because they grow in love. I don’t know, but maybe they both work simultaneously. I don’t think that anyone would’ve convinced me in the past just because of an argument - it’s likely I would’ve thought it sounded cultic, given my upbringing. But through love moving on my heart, I eventually arrived at it.

#10

Fired-Up ~

the portion of your statement in bold is really getting to the heart of the issue. very well expressed.

i see many people who, while living in sinful relationships, cussing, drinking, and disbelieving in Christ, have shown that they are by nature quite a bit kinder, gentler, and helpful than myself. a fellow i work with, a practicing Satanist, is perhaps the most trustworthy, honest, reliable, and considerate man there. if you need him, for anything, he has your back. if a sinner like myself, saved by grace and new in Christ, can continually learn from the unsaved who i ought to be… does anyone else get what i’m trying to say? if Christ died for all, to save all, and if we will be judged by that same Lord Christ finally by our works (Revelation 20:12), i see hope for those around me, and i know that by works and by virtue, they deserve better than i do.

universal salvation may be inconsistent with certain texts of Scripture, but is implied in many others. trusting that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and True, those passages holding out hope through Christ to the multitudes should also be considered. we can’t know ultimately what God will do, because we’re not Him. some verses speak to the salvation of all, others seem to show that some will suffer eternally, or be annihilated. but to hope that all will be saved, by God’s mercy and through the cross, sounds less like heresy as it does a Biblical hope, gleaned through Scripture.

#11

Sherm, man, God blesses me through you so much I just have to drop a few comments:

Indeed! I love this excerpt from a novel called Wilfrid Cumbermede by George MacDonald:

Oooohhh… hey, while you’re into heresies, what do you think about checking out Frank Viola?

Pagan Christianity and Organic Church

Pagan Christianity deconstructs our modern church practices and is well-backed by historical research. The rest of the books (except for From Eternity To Here) practically discuss how to form churches that are in the direction that you’re speaking of! I very, very much recommend these. If nothing else, check out his site ptmin.org!

Hah, love the little controversial endnote, there. :wink: (I’ve seen the Holy Spirit as more feminine in essence for awhile now… I was told Christian mystics do, too)

Your bro
Justin

#12

Hi Justin. Thanks for the link, I’ll likely order the material. I haven’t read Viola’s material but likely share similar philosophies of life in Christ. I’ve been thinking lately on where Systematic Theology fits, or should fit, as a foundational element in “churches”. Most local churches have a Statement of Faith that summarizes their systematic theology, but there are many other doctrines that are considered just as foundational. In order to be an accepted member, and especially a leader, in the church one has to agree with these. And then based upon that agreement one can be an accepted member and fully enjoy the fellowhip and love of the church. So the foundational element of true fellowship for these groups is their systematic theology. Note the following illustration.

                  -----Love God-----    
         ----Love/accept One Another-----
   --------Biblical & Practical Theology---------

----------S Y S T E M A T I C T H E O L O G Y------------

Note that the FOUNDATION is Systematic Theology. I Believe that we’ve got things backwards and the foundation should be our love for God, and out love and acceptance of one another…

           -Systematic Theology-
      --Biblcal/Practical Theology--
 -----Love & Accept One Another-----

-------------L O V E G O D---------------

#13

Very nice. I totally agree.

Frank Viola did write an article about people trying to push their pet doctrines in a meeting and how they totally missed the point. I don’t think that article was taken down along with a few others, for some reason, but it was interesting because he harped a little on people trying to push universalist theology. It’s a good warning, though.

That will be awesome. The book Pagan will really rock you to your foundations about your conception of church, very likely. Although, I think that every Christian has an instinct that something is amiss in churches today. It’s a huge paradigm shift from man-made, officiated liturgy to a living, dynamic community breathed into existence by God Himself. Pagan just deconstructs everything; for the rest you’ll have to go to Reimagining Church and Finding Organic Church. The Untold Story is a really good eye-opener for how Christian community spread in the days of the New Testament. From Here To Eternity is just a great romantic theological statement. I consider the more practical works to be more valuable, although he seems to love that one the most. (I’ve also talked to him on Facebook a bit.)

Most of those books have been at the top of the Amazon religious list when they first came out, so they’ve created quite a stir.

#14

Thanks “stellar renegade” for the response.

Great point. It seems like one must appeal to the general thrust of Scripture revealing the love of God, and not just the exegetical analysis of certain texts, to become convinced of UR.

I agree about creating a sense of community through smaller meetings in homes. My church has this same emphasis.

I am curious: How do people in your church respond/react to your UR beliefs? In particular, how does the leadership respond/react?

#15

Well, yeah, definitely. And you can only hope it would sink in.

The other half of it is that Frank Viola argues against the officiated offices such as the pastoral role, which he claims is more of a spiritual gift that comes naturally and is only recognized after the group has matured a bit.

Hah, you think I’ve told anybody? I’m not interested in committing suicide right now. :laughing:

It’s not the biggest issue in my mind, first it’s the way church is done. Driscoll has already had one of his faculty go after Pagan quite a bit ago, but it was based on a review that had already been refuted. I have a mind to email Mark with the rebuttal so he can have a second opinion, and if that doesn’t work, then when I’m in a position to (and less busy) I’ll try to start some meetings on the side. That’s when I’ll introduce universalism.

Sometimes it helps to think in metaphors. Not a real good idea to go running and screaming into a heavily armed barricade just thrusting a jackknife in front of you.

#16

Well I don’t want to “to go running and screaming into a heavily armed barricade just thrusting a jackknife” but I think I may bring up some of my concerns to my Pastor this week or next.

I have already had some correspondence with him where I raised some of the apparent absurdities that the traditional view can bring. He knows I am wrestling with this but I have not yet suggested that maybe there is another way (e.g. EU) to look at this. We are trying arrange a time to meet soon.

I feel guilty for even doubting the traditional view.

#17

You shouldn’t feel guilty in the slightest. Jesus himself said to see for oneself whether his words are true, which are controversial no matter what age we find ourselves in. You might feel like it’s too good to be true, but He wants peace and rest for your soul, for you are very weary and heavy-burdened.

#18

Being self-critical and careful about any view, including universalism, is a good idea. :slight_smile: Most of us, myself included, did lots and lots of study before accepting universalism to be true, because we cared about truth and didn’t want to teach wrongly about the data, much less teach wrongly about God Himself!–even if a wrong doctrine was something we might emotionally want to be true.

Walk according to as much light as you can see, looking for more light thereby. If you don’t find the evidence and the logic adding up to some kind of universalism, then for God’s sake: DON’T BELIEVE IT!

However – regardless of whether universalism is true or not, and regardless of whether you decide universalism is true or not, I recommend one thing: don’t let anyone bully you into thinking you’re doing something ethically wrong by wanting to believe and trust in the love and competency of God. And don’t let anyone bully you into thinking that you have to accept love and justice as being mutually exclusive actions of God. For example, something like this: “Well that’s fine you want to trust in the love of God, but God is just, too, and you don’t want to trust in that, so you’re guilty of injustice.” That kind of person is the one insisting upon a necessary schism and so a necessary injustice in the character of God. They’re perfectly fine with a love apart from justice so long as that unjust love is in their favor. Insist instead on God’s justice and love to the max for everyone.

Especially don’t settle for God setting aside either His love or His justice (much less both!) if you believe trinitarian theism to be true. And extra-especially don’t settle for someone who is supposed to be teaching ortho-trin theism, also teaching that God sets aside His love and/or His justice. You have rights about what to expect from your teachers and preachers; and they have exactly NO right to ask you to accept anything less than God’s love and justice to the maximum extent, most especially the love and the justice the Persons eternally give to one another. Any ‘justice’ that does not fit the justice of God toward Himself in the Persons of the Trinity, is a ‘justice’ against the intrinsic, living and positive justice of God Himself.

You might be technically wrong to have concerns (or even beliefs) in favor of universalism. You might even be technically wrong about an application of proper ethics. But you cannot be ethically guilty about having concerns in favor of God’s love and justice to the maximum.

And remember: anyone who denies that the Lord God saves, is the one immediately putting himself in a theological difficulty of quite literally having to deny the name of Jesus (which means “The Lord saves” or “The Lord is salvation”.) They’re the people who have to explain why they think it’s right to deny His name that way.

Whatever you decide is true and right to believe, even if that’s different from what I or other universalists believe, you stand on the name of Jesus, if you’re going to be any kind of ‘Christian’ at all. No one, universalist or non-universalist, has any right to hold that against you ethically, or to think less of you for doing so.

(That doesn’t mean you have to shove all that down your pastor’s throat, or anyone else’s. :wink: I’m just trying to give you some basic guidelines you can solidly stand on without having to worry about feeling ethically guilty doing so. :slight_smile: )

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/upfiles/smiley/libra.gif

#19

Also, Stellar is right about a critique amounting to “too good to be true”. The hell it is. There’s nothing too good to be true about God.

If it’s false, it’s false, regardless of whether it’s good or not; but when we’re talking about God, the One Who is intrinsically good, and the source and standard of all goodness, that which is good is either true about God or at least (if a derivative good) has its proper ground in Him.

If the salvation of all sinners from sin is too evil, too unjust to be true about God, so be it. Let its opponent make that case, and if you accept it then don’t believe in the salvation of all sinners from sin by God. If the salvation of all sinners from sin would be a derivative good, but would somehow conflict with God’s own primary and foundational good, such that it would be contradictory for God to persistently act to save all sinners from sin, then so be it. Let its opponent make that case, and if you accept it then don’t believe God persistently acts to save all sinners from sin.

But for God’s sake, don’t settle for a complaint or critique that it’s too good to be true. You have a right to press anyone on that, if they try it. Something might be too good for us to believe to be true, because we’re sinners (a point of principle rightly appealed to by Calvinists on a regular basis, though I certainly disagree with the direction they apply it :wink: …) But that’s a whole different matter.

And if someone wants to argue for a doctrine of God that ends up denying other doctrines of God that they’re trying to promote as true, you have a perfect right to call foul on that, too. Especially when those other tacitly or explicitly denied doctrines are more theologically foundational.

For example, if they try to teach you something requiring a denial of God’s omnipresence, while elsewhere insisting on God’s omnipresence. You hold to God’s omnipresence, and you make sure you tell them you’re holding to God’s omnipresence. Same with omnipotence and omniscience. There are nuances and special case situations, and you can fairly allow those, but don’t let anyone (universalist or non-universalist) just bluntly push you off the theological basics, especially if they themselves agree you’re supposed to be holding to them.

#20

Precisely.

Now, I agree that it took awhile for me to fully believe, too - mostly because I was taught a certain way and feared condemnation for believing different when it wasn’t even the truth. But slowly, gradually, God worked on my heart and I found it to be everlastingly, even righteously true - and the alternative point of view to be unrighteous, wicked and evil, whereas before I thought it was entirely right.

We see our sins as pure until God shockingly reveals them in His holy light.