Professor Roger Olson (an arminian theologian) went into this hot topic:
patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/07/how-serious-a-heresy-is-universalism/
How do you feel about that?
This is oversimplifying. One kind of universalism here seems to mean from the rest of the article) touchy feely liberalism. However , we know from recent discussion that ‘human sinfulness’ mean something rather different in the Eastern and the Augustinian traditions - so which is meant?
Also God’s wrath mean something rather different in the Eastern and the Augustinians tractions. Even in the ECT tradition of the East it is heresy and blasphemy to believe that God created a special fire to torment the damned.
Also I note he has not considered the Girardian universalist position where human sinfulness leads to a descent into human wrath - as communities tear themselves to shreds - which God hands us over to although God is always trying to save us from and heal us from wrath at the same time (and God will eventually succeed).
So just on this score I found the article too simple
I think he needs to revise his comments section – nearly unreadable, and I couldn’t find the comment form. Oh well, I guess I can’t even be a first-rate heretic! 
Incorrect doctrine is something we all want to avoid, I’m sure. It’s lucky for us that Father doesn’t send people to hell for that though. I wonder how incorrect you’re allowed to be before they toss you into the fire?!
Calvinist apologist Kenneth Sample said in a podcast that universalists are NOT Christians so that they will logically usher into hell if they don’t repent.
Are annihilationists any better off in this man’s view of the economy of salvation ? Do they usher in their annihilation if they don’t repent? I would think he finds annihilationists just as damanable as universalists - a wicked slippery slope on he way to universalist depravity. However, you can’t get a nice parallel in a sentence about annihilaitonists in the same way. *‘Those who believe in the eventual salvation of all (including the wicked) usher in their own damnation’ *works nicely - but 'those who believe in the annihilation of the wicked are ushering in their own annihilation’ doesn’t work because it seems to affirm the truth of the wicked heresy of annihilationism.
Concerning our uncharitable man I can only say - ‘He would say that wouldn’t he?’ And I do think he’d see both you and I as damned - you for the heresy of annihilationism, I for the heresy of universalism -which is not very pleasant but we can take it.
The irony of this viewpoint – to whit: “If you don’t believe the bible as I believe the bible, you’re going to hell,” is that it affirms something the bible and most theological points of view do not agree with – to whit: “You are only saved by believing correct doctrine.” We are saved by the sacrifice of and faith of Jesus Christ – not by having guessed correctly on doctrine. But they never seem to see that, do they?
Olson writes:
Whether universalism is “unbiblical” depends of course on one’s exegesis of Holy Scripture–not only one’s critical-historical exegesis of Scripture but one’s exegesis of Scripture as Scripture. It seems to me that people of good will may, do, and will disagree on this.
But is universalism illogical? It certainly is not illogical if one stands within the Augustinian tradition of efficacious grace. If God efficaciously wills that all of humanity will freely repent, then universalism is utterly logical. But of course Olson stands within the Arminian tradition that rejects efficacious grace. Hence he must leave open the possibility that some or many will definitively reject God. I wonder if he has read Eric Reitan’s “Human Freedom and the Impossibility of Eternal Damnation.” (Too bad this essay is not available online. If you haven’t read it, you can find a brief summary of Reitan’s argument here.) If Reitan’s argument should stand up to critique, then we in fact have good reason to believe that all will eventually repent, assuming that God allows the possibility of post-mortem repentance. Perhaps Olson would deny this possibility on biblical grounds.
Cindy,
You hit on a point I’ve read here several times, so I’m not trying to single you out - I just would like to understand a bit more: how important is having the gospel right?
The apostle in Galatians writes:
It is evident that Rome and Protestantism have differing views of the gospel. Both groups historically anathematize each other. Protestants historically refer to the bishop of Rome as the anti-Christ and the Roman church as the harlot. Rome anathematized Protestants in the Council of Trent, saying that any who hold that justification by faith alone is anathema.
I, for one, hold that justification is through faith alone. Others here do not. Is at least one side of this question perverting the gospel of grace? Is at least one of the positions a different gospel? Can both be Christians? If so, how does that line up with the words of the apostle?
I’m not asking for a debate about whether justification is by faith alone; I’m only asking if both groups can be Christian.
I’m not trying to step in front of Cindy on this - she will have a good and thoughtful answer - I just want to throw in the idea that it may not be an ‘either-or’ situation; it may be a ‘both-and’ situation.
I am one who does not fall in with the idea that justification by faith is the heart of the Gospel; I am however thankful that we are justified by faith. But I do not accept, like some that I have met, that sanctification is a different stage in our growth as Christians. I think it is all of one piece and all of us (except for me, I have everything perfectly in perspective 
) will see the emphasis one way or the other. And we will change as we grow. Being a Christian is a dynamic process, not just an acceptance of propositional truths, not just an emphasis on the improvement of self or society. Both-and.
Way I see it $.02
I had NOT seen that commercial - hilarious!
Since your “both-and” includes acceptance of propositional truths, it brings me back around to my original question: which set of propositional truths? Rome’s set of propositional truths? those of the reformed or Lutheran? or none of the above?
That WAS a good one, Akimel!
The Galatian heresy is clearer than, say, the Colossian heresy. It seems plain that the problem Paul had with the Galatians was that they had started to trend back toward the Mosaic or Talmudic law. In other words, they wanted to add circumcision and Sabbath keeping to Christianity. Now I know a lot of Christians who’ve circumcised their little boys, but I don’t think that’s quite the same thing. They do it because it’s cultural tradition, and/or because the doc tells them it’ll be easier for little Johnny to keep clean, and even in one case for reason of medical necessity (adhesions – OUCH! Poor little guy!) The reason they DON’T choose as their motivation is so that they and little Johnny will be acceptable to God. That was the Galatians’ purported reason. Some speculation has it that this was also a tactic to avoid persecution as the Jewish “cult” was legal in Rome, and Christianity, so long as it was seen by Rome as a sect of Judaism, was sort of grandfathered in and thus exempted from persecution. What did the Jews emphasize? Circumcision and Sabbath keeping. If you read the whole letter, you’ll see that Paul explains to the Galatians that it isn’t enough to just become circumcised, but that he who is circumcised is responsible also to keep the entire law.
Christian doctrine (yes, doctrine is important – just not salvific) makes it plain that we are NOT justified by keeping the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. So if they were about returning to the law, well there had NEVER been a sacrifice for intentional sin, and there was now no more sacrifice for sin since Jesus had entered the Holy of Holies not with the blood of bulls and goats, but with a better sacrifice. (I suspect this refers to the sacrifice of obedience.) There remains no more sacrifice for sins. You can’t return to the sacrificial system – that goat has sailed. We’re on a new system now, and that is trust in Jesus to save us from our sin. Paul wasn’t even talking about doctrine here, but something more basic – trusting in Christ and depending on His faithfulness to save us.
I know I mixed in a bit of Hebrews here, but it’s basically the same thing. That was the problem of the Hebrews to whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, too. I don’t believe that sincere followers of Jesus are rejected for faults in doctrine, be they Roman Catholic, any brand of Protestant, non-denominational, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic, or anything else.
I do believe that sanctification is, not exactly a separate work, but an outgrowth of initial salvation (which is itself sometimes gradual – it was for me). Clearly we don’t come off our knees and start living like Mother Theresa. That degree of maturity takes time and quite a lot of struggle to develop. But from the time we begin following Jesus, we are “holiness unto the Lord” (that is, set apart for Him – part of His body – part of His bride).
Love, Cindy
Dan, I’m sorry I missed your point, now I feel a little stupid.
All we can do is choose what to believe, not mindlessly of course, and not all at once, but weighing and testing and interpreting as best we can. In Brian MacLaren’s book “Generous Orthodoxy” he has a chapter on 'the 7 Jesuses I have known" - not just reformed or Catholic, but the whole gamut, and the value he found in the different traditions.
I get his point - understanding the Church of Jesus Christ cannot IMO be done from one and only one perspective, or 1 set of propositional truths. The Church is bigger than that. But of course, if the propositional truths actually conflict, a person has to weigh the evidence, search the scriptures - none of which is easy, but that’s life in the 21st century - a hall of mirrors, each reflecting in a slightly different and exaggerated way.
“that goat has sailed”
I am humbled into the dust by that wonderful phrase
It just came to me. Must have been the Holy Spirit. 
I might throw this in as well: I have adopted Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Say you are satisfied with a theory. Then an anomaly pops up. Then another. Soon, if enough anomalies show up, then all of a sudden your theory must enlarge to include what are not now anomalies but parts of the new theory. Fascinating book.
For Kuhn, this explains why there are scientific revolutions, not just the incremental addition of knowledge brought about by normal science.
My understanding of God - and maybe your experience is somewhat the same - has been to adopt a point of view, at one time charismatic, then Presbyterian, then Calvinism - and stick with it as long as I could, staying intellectually honest - but having to change the model under the force of what I perceived to be anomalies that mitigated against it, enough that I had to adopt a new model. EU, as I interpret it, provides that model. Will that change? I don’t know, so far no little pesky ‘facts’ appear to conflict with the core EU principles in the forum’s Statement of Faith. I’m happy with it.
Thanks for your well thought reply Cindy. Here is the part where more clarification is needed:
Who is Christ? What did he do (or what is he doing) to save us? How can I trust in Christ without knowing what he has done (or is doing)? I don’t think we can answer these questions without doctrine. Doctrine teaches us what Christ Jesus did for us. However,neither Rome nor the various flavors of Protestantism answer the questions of what Jesus did for us the same.
Additionally, wouldn’t one think that the church of Galatia knew that Christ died for them? Since the apostle said that they were turning away from what had been preached to them, then it is evident that they had been originally taught to trust in Christ. Yet, they were adding additional requirements, namely, the requirement of circumcision. They were moving to a “Jesus plus” gospel, which, according to the apostle, is not the gospel. Maybe they would even say they were trusting in Christ, but it appears that they were adding additional requirements and thus the apostle anathematizes those who were teaching the church additional requirements.
The interesting thing about this is that these are the words (in Galatians above) of the same apostle who said literally nothing about hell. So, what then is “another gospel?” (Just pointing out that this passage is often used as a ‘clobber verse’ against universalists and/ or anyone else who doesn’t hold to the mainstream evangelical view). I also wonder even about the usefulness of labeling one group “Christian” over and against another. Jesus was not a Christian after all, unless we’re prepared to claim he was a follower of himself!
LOVE the goat, Dave. Only you would go looking for a goat in a boat!
I could give you my answers for that. I don’t think that’s your point though. Of course correct doctrine is important. Otherwise why spend so much time pursuing it? I didn’t mean to give the impression I don’t care a fig whether I’m right or wrong about things like the atonement, our eternal destiny, what it means for Jesus to save us (and from WHAT He’s saved us). I spend a great deal of time and thought, study and prayer on getting my doctrine as right as I possibly can. Ultimately though, I know I’m sure to be wrong about many things. If only by looking back at how many things I’ve discarded outright and changed my mind on and rethought . . . yeah, I’m wrong about lots of things. Do I think I’m going to hell for that? No. Our Father isn’t like that. If He is, we’re all in a hole too deep to crawl out of. If God is evil, we are all smoked.
If they’re adding stuff (circumcision, Sabbath keeping) to what’s essential, then that isn’t primarily trusting in Christ. It’s true that the various branches of the church have interpreted the meaning of the atonement & etc. in different ways. I do believe that every true heart that longs for Jesus will find Him. We may have incorrect doctrine and still have a heart that’s right with God. Of COURSE it’s better to have true doctrine than false, and of COURSE it’s worth the searching of a lifetime to do our best to find that true doctrine. That said, I believe that ANY person truly seeking God will find Him and not another. It really isn’t about doctrine; it’s about love and trust. There’s a lot more to this than I can understand, but hopefully that more or less answers your question as to what I think about this. Whether or not I’m right is a whole 'nuther thing.