The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Patristic Fathers

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

A huge difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of the Cults, is that the cults are always looking for new revelations, usually related to new sectarian ways of dividing. I’m talking about The Mormons, or the Adventists in particular, who are very comfortable adding to Dogma. So why would we still hold onto dogma about Hell not held definitively by the early church? Why do we hold to later interpretations, particularly Roman interpretations when Augustine was decided for over Origen (essentially the first systomatic theologian) by the Roman church. I’m not saying Origen has the gospel ‘right’, but then again, neither does Augustine (Origen has a cyclical view of history and Augustine invented purgatory/limbo).

Christians should be always looking backward, looking to the time of Christ, looking to the earliest manuscripts, the earliest versions of dogma. We should want our church to be closest as possible to the church of Christ, no? Do you think you have better reasoning skills than the ancient church simply because you operate with better hermeneutics? Do you really think we are better at ancient Greek and Latin than the church fathers? So why don’t we sit down and understand their positions. They were not united. In the early chuch there were six theological schools. Four of them (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist. One (Ephasus) was Annahiliationist and one (Rome) was for ECT. In the patristic church, they did not have all their dogma’s worked out. Just as there is definate tension within Paul as to who is saved (Universalism can be defended, ECT can be defended) there was tension within the early church. There should ALWAYS be tension, but we should always hope that God will fulfil his own will to save every last one of us. I am not a Universalist, but I, and all Christians should hope and pray that God saves all every single day instead of ‘knowing’ that God won’t because they belong to a Western church that evolved from the Roman position of ECT.

#2

rainzbow.

The early church fathers are an example to us of what it means to follow Christ and defend the truth. None of the early church fathers were perfect, just as none of us are perfect. Some of the early church fathers held beliefs that most Christians today consider to be incorrect. What eventually developed into Roman Catholic theology had its roots in the writings of the post-Nicene fathers. While we can gain knowledge and insight by studying the early church fathers, ultimately our faith must be in the Word of God, not in the writings of early Christian leaders. Only God’s Word is the infallible guide for faith and practice.

#3

The early church and the fathers were a wonder, as well as the growth of the church.

That growth can be explained by the Gospel they spread. ‘God loves mankind.’ i.e. universalism.

One cannot account for that growth if the message had been to (for example) Germania : “Your parents are burning in Hell for believing in Odin but save yourself - you’ll never see them again anyway.”

Given the decline of Christianity today - THAT ‘gospel’ isn’t working any better now than it would have worked then.

#4

this is a very interesting thought, I never came to that conclusion before, but it makes good sense.

#5

That is why the church of the Medieval time was so corrupt.

#6

But you have to realize Born Again, that the kind of infallibility you are talking about wasn’t even conceptualized until Biblicism movements in the Middle Ages, like those led by Wycliffe or Huss. I’m not arguing for the authority of tradition over the authority of scripture, don’t misunderstand (although also understand that you see infallibility in a way that nobody would have understood you in the early church). My only real argument (both to you and to Universalists ) is that that tension was always there and will always be there. There is nothing new under the sun. I happen to strongly hope that Universalism is true and it most corresponds to how I personally understand the character of God, however, Universalism is unfortunately not ‘The Gospel’, which is only Christ entering the world and dying on the cross. Could we all agree to that?

#7

Nope. THE Gospel is universal in scope, hope and eschatology. It’s not a theory.

20th century evangelical reductionism is NOT the Gospel.

#8

I think we agree! The Gospel isn’t universalism, it includes universalism, but salvation is the milk and we should be going on to more mature things, God permits. :stuck_out_tongue:

#9

I’m really not trying to be a thorn like you sometimes perceive BA to be, but I have to agree with him that preaching universalism outright is just dangerous. The Bible is not systematic and while it can be harmonized into systems that both reject outright or proclaim outright UR, if it was meant to be given to us in that harmonized manor than it would would have been. We need to hope that all men will be saved, but if we claim that all men will surely be saved, and we are wrong, then how many may have fallen because we misinterpreted scripture. And yes, I am anticipating that you might argue ‘how many more people will be attracted with UR as opposed to being ‘threatened’ with ECT’, and in that instance I would have to agree with you, but the tensions in scripture just won’t allow me to responsibly do that. Wouldn’t it be best to perhaps preach through Romans 5 for instance, but also inform the listener that Christ often spoke in harrowing ways about what would happen in the lifes of those who chose not the Kingdom of God, whether in this life or the next. Obviously the focus could be on the potential for UR, but to ignore the other half seems wrong. I mean, what happens when a new Christian comes across those passages on his or her own? A new crisis?

#10

On a side note: sorry for not posting this in the General Discussion section.

#11

rainzbow.

Well said. I would rather be wrong preaching consequences of rejecting the only provision for sin, Jesus…than to be wrong preaching everyone goes to heaven.

#12

Both of you then do not understand universalism, universalism doesn’t preach that all will go to heaven.

#13

I understand universalism, which, of course, there are multiple versions. If you want to know the speculative version I personally put my hope in (I would even say I believe it, although I wouldn’t preach it) it is that we will all be in the presence of God, and that that presence will be punishment to those who have refused to repent in this life and glorious to those who have already repented. And I believe that in time, that presence of God will turn the individual punished toward the face of god and that that individual will come to repent. This is most similar to the EO understanding of eschatology.

However, unlike you, and like BA (although I am far more convinced of UR than BA if that isn’t obvious from the above), I believe that there is enough argument in the Bible for a most permanent damnation that we should never simply be going around proclaiming Universalism. It should be presented to all Christians, but confirmed for none, in my opinion. In the words of Karl Barth on UR, ‘I do not teach it, I do not not teach it’. Both people railing against ECT and railing against UR are seriously attacking the freedom of God.

#14

I can teach punishment if you wish:

Let us say you continue in unbelief, and reject the good the Father has provided us through His Son. Instead, you chose a life for self. This is the reality, your rejection of Christ is not what damned you, because you are already damned. You refuse to build on the Rock, and so the Rock will crush you. God doesn’t need to cast you into the Lake of Fire, you cast yourself into it and everything you ever built will be destroyed. If you based your identity on that which you built on a foundation of sand, your identity will also be destroyed beyond recovery. You will not be able to save anything, the condition you will be in is from bad to worse and not only will you suffer loss, you will suffer permanent destruction. You will be so low, that even in the age to come, you will be able to return. It will come to a point where you have dug so deep, spun so far down, that you cannot move, think or move. Then, that is when God will pick you up and you will be saved, but as one who had gone through the flames. The question is do you want to continue to build up treasures that will rust and burn away, or will you build for yourself a treasure that will never decay in heaven?

That is what the Patristic Father’s taught. There is no need for permanent, perpetual torment in any of that. There is no evidence that the torment is infinite in duration, but there is no doubt it exists for those who persists in their wickedness.

#15

It’s so hard to disagree with you, because we really believe the same thing regarding The End. However, you are blinded to the fact that there is evidence that you could be wrong. You have created a system to ignore that. You have forced one aspect of God to overwhelm another aspect of God. Don’t bind God to do any one thing at all. He could have never sent his son at all and he would be justified in doing so. I don’t believe he ever would do that because he wants to magnify his divine mercy, but he could. We believe the same thing, brother, but I know that the only absolutely sure way into heaven is through putting faith in God in this life and that is all I will preach for certain (while also preaching hope in UR).

#16

There is no evidence I can be wrong, there is no system to ignore it. You have not brought up any supporting evidence to even propose that there is perpetual unending torment for those who do not believe; besides this, if you are still afraid that there is a possibility of such action, you have yet to be made perfect in love because perfect love casts out all fear!

I have not forced any ‘aspect’ of God to overwhelm another. God is Love, this is not an aspect, this is what God is. From this foundation does all else come. His justice and his vengence comes from His Nature and His Nature is? Love. This is not a personality trait, this is the ontological nature of God. He is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Perfect Love.

I never said there was no punishment, I never said there was no hell. There is a very real rod coming down on those who treat the blood of Christ with contempt and trample on the grace of God. So, here is the issue, try to make a case of perpetual punishment without end and explain every exception to the rule, only then will you understand that there is no way I can be wrong about salvation or what the early church believed. God does not need perpetual torment and punitive punishment to accomplish His purpose and plan. Such tactics are human in origin because we do not have the power to change the minds of men but what is impossible for man is possible with God.

Essentially, you have only exposed the fact you do not believe in Universal Salvation for all, only that you favor it over the alternative. Well, my friend, you need to be a Student of the Word, and test all things, a good workman who properly handles the word of God no longer conforming your mind to the pattern of this world but renewing your mind by the washing of the Word. Only then, my friend, will you know His good, pleasing and perfect will.

So you still have fears that salvation is not assured for all humanity? Where does this fear come from? Perfect Love casts out all fear. Some may think I am not humble to speak so boldly, but there is a difference between humility and timidity. One can be very bold and speak without doubt and still be humble in everything he does, I have no fear concerning this very truth. I may not have the most perfect of speech, but it makes it less true. You say we believe the same thing, a hope in UR but a hope which is not assured is no hope at all. I know I offend, and I know I appear unkind; hope does not mean uncertainty with the scales pointing to at least possibility of certainty. That is called chance, I do not chance on God and if you have any inclination that UR is true over ET, then deep down you know what I said is true.

#17

While I appreciate the tension Rainzbow and BA is grappling with, it only IS a tension if universalism is seen as viable. And there are all sorts of hints, proofs and even hermeneutic instructions to say that it is true and drive one’s thinking to a new conclusion.

For example: “Forgive as you have been forgiven.” I was forgiven and redeemed at the Cross with everyone else. If I believe that and then let creep in the idea that I deserved forgiveness now BECAUSE I believe it - then I must go back to the Cross and qualify (judge) everything about it. It is no longer the same Cross. Everyone talks about Grace as UNmerited favor - it sounds pious, but just below the surface we find a qualified grace operating under a qualified cross. i.e. we find religion.

'Forgive as you have been forgiven" is a hermeneutic principle. I think if one follows that principle honestly, the universal quality of the NT pops out at you and becomes undeniable. I say ‘honestly’ because a sense of merit (no matter how small) is like poison to The Gospel. A poison: the sense that it is your faith that propitiates God. Christ becomes superfluous at that point. “Not me!” you say, “I would never undermine Christ like that!” Take a good look.

The fathers had no problem preaching universalism - they understood Grace. So I would ask (and the hermeneutic itself begs the question): How were you forgiven? Was it by Grace? Or grace with an asterisk?

#18

I agree Ranran.

P.S. I got rid of the hat just for you by the way. :wink:

#19

Your arguments are very compelling. I do know that God is Love and that God’s wrath is a strange action to him. I can’t really argue any further, because while we both do believe in UR, I take seriously the fact that Jesus Christ himself did talk about a possibly eternal final punishment and so I wouldn’t try to hide the fact that it is potentially eternal. Do you think it’s just strong rhetoric? Do you think it’s just all parable? I really want to know.

And it is fear that keeps me doubting UR, you are right. It’s fear that I could be wrong and my friends could suffer because they don’t believe the same things I do.

#20

rainzbow.

Craig said: There is no evidence I can be wrong, there is no system to ignore it.

Born Again: This is extremely arrogant and Craig is closing the book on any possibility he could be wrong. Scary. Very Scary.

Matthew 7:13-14 is crystal clear. Jesus said “FEW” find LIFE. What life? ETERNAL LIFE! Eternal life is Eternal life, whether it is found in this life, or the next. But UR’s want you to believe “ALL” will eventually find this life. Jesus said “Few”, not “ALL”. I’m curious how Craig or anyone else will try to twist these verses, Jesus, was crystal clear. “FEW” not “ALL”. I’m open to the possibility that Jesus did not mean only a “few” , if one can explain why Jesus did not say “All”. If UR were true would not Jesus say “All” instead of “few” ?