The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Objections to Univeralism

“God is the Savior of all men” = All men will enjoy never-ending bliss in Heaven.
“especially of those who believe” = Believers are filled with the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers have to make do with poop.

It seemed to me at first, Davo, that you think Jesus came into his Kingdom on the day He died. In what sense would that be coming into his Kingdom? He died, and wasn’t raised to life again until the third day thereafter, so He couldn’t have been coming into his Kingdom on the day He died. But then you indicated that “Today” means “henceforth or hereafter or from now on.” It doesn’t. “Today” means “today”! If I told you I was going to bring you the money I owe you today, and brought you only one cent per day for the next 20 years, you could justly accuse me of lying.

Also, the Kingdom of God was on earth prior to Jesus’ death:
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17:20,21 ESV)

A kingdom consists of a king and his subjects. Jesus was the King, and his disciples were his subjects. Thus the kingdom of God was right there in the midst of the Pharisees.

The coming of Jesus into his Kingdom will be a single event, not a continuing process.
Consider Jesus’ answer to his disciples when they asked Him to explain the parable of the tares of the field.

He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! (Matt 13:37-43 NKJV)

Notice that Christ’s Kingdom was present throughout the events in Jesus’ explanation of the parable. Yes, his Kingdom was present while He walked this earth, and it is still present to this day. But the day will come when Christ returns to earth, when “every eye will see Him.” That will be the harvest at the end of the age, the end of the present age. There will be a great separation of the lawless people from the righteous, the former group being cast into the “furnace of fire.” Then Christ will come into his Kingdom to rule, and the Kingdom age will begin.

I know preterists believe that the “end of the age” refers to the end of the Israeli kingdom. But it cannot be. For the events Christ described in his explanation did not occur in 70 A.D.

Thus the repentant thief will be in Paradise with Christ on the day He returns. Whether Paradise is in Heaven or on Earth, I do not know. But it will be wonderful to be under Christ’s direct rule until the day that Christ Himself will be subject to his Father so that God will be all in all. (1 Cor 15:28)

I saw your thread, but my issue is finding GOD-INSPIRED use of ‘αἰώνιος [aiōnios]’ to mean a temporal period of time. My anxiety issues require me to find a God-inspired use of ‘aiōnios’ meaning a temporal period of time for assurance that the word doesn’t mean literally eternal.

What do we do with these early church leader quotes:

They affirm eternal torment.

I have a poll asking about universalists who believe in post-mortem corrective punishment, the Trinity, and free will:
[Poll: Universalists who believe in The Trinity and Free Will)

I am seeking out these very difficult to find people, please vote.
One of my biggest problems with universalism is the simply overwhelming number of universalists who deny the Trinity and free will, two very important truths. The Trinity because denial of it usually leads denial of The Lord Jesus Christ being God, and free will because punishing someone for something they were predetermined to do is just plain wrong.

God Bless
Christ Be With You All

As I understand it, this was all part of the process of Jesus coming into that to which he had been called. Take for example when Jesus cried from the cross “It is finished!”… this was PRE death, PRE burial, PRE resurrection, PRE ascension and PRE parousia, and yet ALL that needed to to happen for the FULLNESS of the event of the Cross and all that that entailed was set in motion, i.e., it was a done deal with no turning back, a “fait accompli”. Not only that… in light of the likes of 1Pet 3:19 I don’t think Jesus was just standing around beyond the grave. Someone who has gone off “into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom” can well and truly be said to be on their way to having entered said kingdom.

Like most illustrations these can be taken both ways, which is WHY I appeal to the evidence of the TEXT itself. The thief’s plea is “WHEN…” and Jesus says “TODAY”. But, to use your rationale… WHEN a politician hits the hustings saying “TODAY we take back this nation blah blah blah”… he means – from this point forward etc.

Indeed it was… “the kingdom of GOD” i.e., the Father’s domain, which Jesus as the Son learning obedience and in due course being raised to glory and honour at the Father’s right hand.

This is unnecessary double-speak where you simply pad out a middle transitioning ground to justify two conflicting points, i.e., Jesus’ kingdom was “present” BUT then “will begin”… which is it??

Actually your “Israeli kingdom” is not correct. The “end of the age” references the old covenant age… God’s old covenant age with Israel, i.e., that which had been “glorious” was being (process) superseded by the “much more glorious” (2Cor 3:6-8). As for “the events Christ described in his explanation did not occur in 70 A.D” consider this…

All that offended and those so practicing lawlessness were the disobedient sons of Israel, and in particular the hierarchy thereof; these would (in time from this prophetic word) find their place in the “furnace of fire” aka “the lake of fire” i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem of AD70. All present (“every eye”) saw this… whether they understood it as such is not the issue.

I suspect Jesus’ “paradise” speaks more of POSITION than PLACE. IOW, this penitent thief would not be acquainted with the terrors of death because he would be WITH Jesus.

Again, instead of ignoring it, I go back to the TEXT… the thief asks WHEN and Jesus says TODAY!

This is NOT “double-speak.” Rather the beginning of the “Kingdom of God” (consisting of Jesus and his disciples) is not tantamount to the beginning of the “Kingdom age.” The latter refers to the culmination of the Kingdom when the kingdoms of this world will have become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Anointed One, and He shall reign into the ages of ages. (Rev 11:15) It is then that the Kingdom age will begin.

This is a three-fold answer:

First, I do not care at all–not a fig–that other people believe in eternal torment. As St. Makrina asked her brother St. Gregory of Nyssa, “Since when are the notions of the ignorant an index to the truth?” Even if the whole universe believed in eternal torment, I would not. God forbid.

Second, even assuming that all those men in the link used to believe in eternal torment, they do so no longer. They know better now. They are now all certainly universalists.

Third, I doubt if any of those men believed in eternal torment. Click here to read what I would need to have before believing that a Greek Church Father believed in eternal torment:

There is a basic example of this very thing in the Scriptures relative to the temporal nature of <αἰώνιος> aiōnios… that which is otherwise referred to as being “eternal”. Take “circumcision”… it is said to be an “everlasting covenant” AND YET such ‘eternal-ness’ applied ONLY WITHIN the “age” wherein it applied and thus functional.

Such was life under the old covenant AND YET this “everlasting covenant” of circumcision was but a type that which was to find true fullness and completion in Christ.

So, what we have is a temporal covenant operative WITHIN a specified “age” i.e., of the old covenant era, described in such language as being “everlasting” and “eternal”.

There are of course many other examples of the same use of “eternal” from the OT relative to the land, the priesthood, the Sabbath etc, yet all finding termination in the fullness of Christ.

STT – will have to catch up on your latest post later, but I don’t understand why you don’t regard the end of Rom 16:25 as a temporal use of eonian – the time had a beginning and had either ended or was coming to an end in Paul’s day and definitely would have an end. (Or maybe why you don’t regard it as inspired scripture?!?)

Allin and Hanson both have accessible quotes from the Patristics, and both are pretty accurate from what I’ve been able to cross-examine, although I think Hanson takes the evidence rather too far.

Geoff: I didn’t get remedial post-mortem punishment from “Romish” purgatorial doctrines, and neither did all the pre-schism (and in some cases post-schism) Fathers who taught it. It’s both unrealistic and unfair to treat non-RCs as getting it from Rome; we regard the RCCs as having perverted the very clear teaching of remedial post-mortem punishment in the Fathers (and we would say going back into scripture) in a procrustean fashion to fit some kind of eternal conscious torment, too. Whether we’re right or not is a whole other question, but charging us as having the RC notion of purgatory and/or getting our non-RC notion of purgatory from the RCC, is silly. (Nor did I get it from the Fathers who taught remedial post-mortem punishment, nor have many other Protestants done so, though no doubt some found it there first – Schaff comes to mind as a famous Protestant scholar who first found it there.)

On the topic of “this day in Paradise”, I agree that the grammar can be read either way, but I also agree on the side of immediate and extended context that Luke was reporting Jesus saying “today you will be with Me in paradise”: partly because that answer fits better with the (admittedly, politely incidental) timing qualification of the penitent rebel’s request (“whenever you may be coming into your kingdom”); and partly because {amên legô soi} “Truly I am saying to you” is a highly characteristic way for Jesus to talk in all four Gospel reports (with GosJohn’s report having a double amen but otherwise being regularly identical) and it would be stylistically unique (though admittedly not impossible) for Jesus to switch up His usual mode of declarative promise to add a rhetorical “today” in the sense of “I’m telling you now: etc.”.

I found this article at Is Hell Eternal Punishment, Eternal Death or Disciplinary Restoration?. I found these statistics interesting:

Jason, I must apologize for not being clear and not making crisp distinctions. I certainly do not mean to say that you or any other universalist in particular adopted the idea of post-mortem unpleasantness from the mature doctrine of Purgatory as taught by the Roman Catholic Church for the last millennium. I know that one of my favorite saints (St. Gregory of Nyssa) taught post-mortem unpleasantness, and it is from such figures that you have adopted post-mortem unpleasantness. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully, alas) to make is this:

While it would be natural for a Roman Catholic universalist to believe in post-mortem unpleasantness (since the Roman Church teaches Purgatory–which by its very nature involves post-mortem unpleasantness–as a dogma), I find it surprising when Orthodox or Protestant universalists believe in post-mortem unpleasantness. Why? Because:

  1. The Orthodox Church, in spite of the ancient figures who taught limited post-mortem unpleasantness, has not adopted that teaching. For example, in the numerous accounts in the liturgy of Christ emptying the grave immediately following His death upon the Cross, it speaks of the splendor of His Godhead instantly obliterating the powers of the grave and Christ leading all of the dead (from Adam to the thief on the cross) up to Heaven. Ultra-universalism, if you will. I am not aware of any liturgical text speaking of post-mortem unpleasantness. At an Orthodox funeral, we speak of the departed as being in a place of lightness, a place of repose, where no sorrow or sickness dwells, where all tears have passed away. We do not speak of post-mortem unpleasantness. In light of all of this, I would naturally expect an Orthodox universalist to be an Orthodox ultra-universalist, kind of like this: “Oh! I used to believe that at death each person immediately went to his eternal destiny either in Heaven or in Hell, but now I know that all will attain to Heaven. Therefore I now believe that when each person dies, regardless of who he is, he goes immediately to Heaven.” Inserting post-mortem unpleasantness there is uncharacteristic of Orthodoxy (but not of Roman Catholicism, which has long taught post-mortem unpleasantness for the departed saints.)

  2. The Protestant Church also, in spite of any ancient teachings of limited post-mortem unpleasantness, has not adopted that teaching. The historic position of the Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed Churches has been that when a man dies he either immediately goes to Heaven (where he will stay forever) or to Hell (where he will stay forever). Like the Orthodox, the Protestants have taught that no man on earth dies in a state of sinlessness, and therefore when he goes to Heaven Christ instantly purifies him and makes him perfect. They do not teach that the departed saint must go through a process of purification, but rather that the purification is instant. Limited ultra-universalism, if you will. So when a Protestant becomes a universalist, it would seem natural that he would say, “Oh, I now realize that all will attain to Heaven. Therefore, whenever a man dies, he immediately goes to Heaven, no matter who he is.” Inserting the notion of post-mortem unpleasantness seems an uncharacteristic thing for a Protestant to do.

Or, to try to put each of the above succinctly:

A1. An Orthodox ultra-universalist has to do only one thing: Get rid of Hell.
A2. An Orthodox universalist has to do two things: Get rid of Hell AND adopt post-mortem unpleasantness.

B1. A Protestant ultra-universalist has to do only one thing: Get rid of Hell.
B2: A Protestant universalist has to do two things: Get rid of Hell AND adopt post-mortem unpleasantness.

C1: A Catholic ultra-universalist has to do two things: Get rid of Hell AND get rid of Purgatory.
C2: A Catholic universalist has to do only one thing: Get rid of Hell.

Therefore, it is a shorter journey from Orthodoxy or Protestantism to ultra-universalism (with an extra step required to arrive at universalism).
Therefore, it is a shorter journey from Catholicism to universalism (with an extra step required to arrive at ultra-universalism).

I hope that makes sense! :slight_smile:

Oh, and I forgot to say that I agree with Jason that “Truly I say unto you, today you shall be with me in Paradise” is the more natural punctuation, for many times in the Gospel Jesus begins a statement with the phrase, “Truly I say unto you”. He never begins a statement with the phrase, “Truly I say unto you today”.

I think we pick terms that have connotations.

I found this article at Is Hell Eternal Punishment, Eternal Death or Disciplinary Restoration?. Instead of universalism, it uses the term Universal Restoration, which I believe Paidion likes (though he might differ a bit, with the author). I like this term also and classify myself, as a hopeful Universal Restorationist.

I really don’t like the term postmortem corrective punishment. I prefer the term postmortem refinement. I take the position that Biblical descriptions of hell (and Hades) are metaphorical. Hence, we really don’t know the exact nature, of any postmortem refinement.

And for those who don’t like to read, here is the Universal Restoration article - explained on YouTube :exclamation: :smiley:

Part 1


Part 2


Jason, that is probably the best example in the New Testament. A secret kept for “eternal ages” has now been revealed! Hmmm… Not too eternal!

I believe Romans 16:25 is inspired, but I don’t understand it properly, could it be saying that the mystery was kept secret before eternity began?

I’m confused why you can’t see it being used as a figure of speech, as in for example the likes of one partner to another… “My love for you is eternal” or someone complaining at a bus stop… “I’ve been waiting like forever!

By its nature “eternity” is not bound by beginning nor end, it just is. The aiōnios <αἰώνιος> of Rom 16:25 simply means ancient times or long ages past i.e., from ‘antiquities into perpetuity’ – another way of saying vastness.

I don’t know who you are addressing, Davo, but notwithstanding, I’ll tell you why I don’t take it as a figure of speech. Simply because it makes sense without taking it as a figure of speech when αιωνιος is translated correctly as “lasting” or “long lasting” rather than “eternal.”

… according to the disclosure of the secret kept concealed during long lasting times.

Hi Paidion… I was actually addressing STT’s post immediately above mine.

I actually think it’s BOTH… any figure of speech tends to have some literal legitimacy whereby its given applied meaning, i.e., figure of speech, makes sense.

What is a unbeliever? :confused:

Well, do you mean (or think Paul means) anyone who *does not believe at a particular moment *in Christ? Or someone who has rejected Christ? Or maybe someone who can never for what ever reason, believe?

So can I have friendship with my severely retarded cousin who has no comprehension of Christ?

You used the term ‘being friends with’ and the verses is the NASB uses the terms harmony and agreement.

For myself, when a heathen comes to our church, I will go right up to them, shake their hand, show them friendship and love. Will I invite them over to play with my grandkids? probably not. But Christ came for the sick and hurting, and I tend to think that is the tradition to follow. I don’t think that is what Paul is talking about here.

Some tend to think that these verses are about partnerships like marriage or business.
I tend to think he is talking about forming tight relationships with others. To be quite honest, I really don’t know of too many non believers (heathen, rebellious in this case) Who enjoy being around true believers. :smiley: We are boring :laughing:

Oh, come now Chad. It’s only because you don’t embrace the Holy Fool theological tradition and the P-Zombie philosophical tradition. They might call you “strange”, “weird”, “unusual”, etc. - but never boring. :exclamation: :laughing: