It’s been a while since I’ve posted anything in this forum - but I had a thought for a discussion topic today. I’m wondering if any of you had a somewhat similar experience with Universalism to mine - when I discovered Universalism, I was going through a period of searching, and a lot of my theology changed all at once. Universalism opened up other possibilities for me. For example, it wasn’t long after I was convinced of Universal Reconciliation that I started thinking about panentheism, and eventually concluded that this was also a Biblical idea. Somewhat related, though not a necessary doctrine to be a Universalist - I also rejected “Satisfaction Theory” type ideas of the atonement in favor of a “Christus Victor” approach (you could still say that in some way I still believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but only in the sense that I believe it was man who demanded the payment, not God). What about everyone else - did you end up changing your approach to other issues as a result of your newfound Universalism?
Personally, I was not “searching”. I was a content that what I believed was true, that there was a hell and too many people were going there. Someone asked me what I thought of Carlton Pearson becoming a Universalist. I said that my initial thought was that he’d gone of the deep end, but that this opinion was not based in knowledge of what he actually believed; so this opinion was not a strong conviction. I told the person I’d get back with them after I researched it a little. I got a copy of his book, found that he did not give a very strong theological presentation of why he had changed, but he did mention several pro-UR scriptures. I set his book aside and started studying the pro-UR passages thinking I’d be able to dismiss them quickly. But the more I studied them in context, the more they seemed to affirm UR.
Seeing UR in these passages scared me so I decided to study the passages on Hell thinking they would affirm Infernalism so strongly that once could not believe in UR and accept the whole of scripture. I started this study of Hell thinking of Infernalism as rock-solid granite; but as I studied scripture on the matter, what I thought was rock-solid crumbled between my fingers like sand and blew away. For a few months, though in my heart I had come to believe in UR, I would not admit such to myself much less anyone else. Then one Sunday during worship the Lord spoke to me saying, “Stop Lying!” Tha’s all He said but I understood that He meant for me to be honest with myself and everyone else that I had come to believe that Jesus really is the savior of all, that love does not fail, and that Our Father will never give up until all of His children are home, not one sheep shall be lost!
Hi Geoff
Yep, PSA went out the window when I became a Universalist. Actually, it might have been the other way round 
. This was partly down to my extensive reading of George MacDonald. But also I think it came about as I gradually felt more and more liberated to throw off the shackles of orthodoxy, reject all the traditional teachings about God at which my conscience recoiled, and stop worrying about being damned as a heretic.
I now find myself rejecting much of ‘orthodoxy’ - in addition to the doctrines named above, I now reject both original sin and justification by faith. Yikes!
But my faith in a loving God, and in His son and exact representation on this earth, Jesus Christ, the Living Word, the author and perfecter of our faith, is stronger than ever.
I reckon I got a good deal .
Cheers
Johnny
I think I’ve been de-churchized when I came to believe in a (hopeful) UR. (I qualify this because I’m not entirely confident yet, but it looks so much more promising that ECT). What I mean by de-churched is that I decided to take a huge step back away from all the doctrines taught in the church and wanted to explore the scriptures without any preconcieved notions (though that is extremely hard to do when you’ve been at it so long). I especially wanted to look at scriptures through the lens of the Jewish culture, since that is where Christianity has its roots. I figure that coming to the scriptures clean in that fashion would be condusive to a better understanding of scriptures, especially when that Jewish light is shone on the New Testament. And to be honest, I almost became a Noahcide, in a crisis of faith, because I found myself in conflict with many of the doctrines that the modern churches teach from the NT don’t seem to square with what the Jews are accustomed with (not excluding ECT). It’s kind of hard to explain. But one thing that really didn’t make sense to me was that according to common thinking that 90-95% of the world’s population is doomed to an eternal hell. It just doesn’t seem logical that God can claim any kind of victory (especiaslly over the Adversary) with those kind of numbers. Something wasn’t right the more I thought about it. Yet how could Jesus be the Savior of the world is most either didn’t even know about Him or born into another religious tradition or had some misunderstanding of Him or a misguided idea of salvation (even in Christian circles). All these people doomed for that? Where is this Great God of the Earth? It just all seems unimaginable for a God whom is the very expression and definition of love to torment people forever fro such petty reasons. (Not to say sin is petty reason, but that He hadn’t made salvation so obviously clear to everyone to make a rational choice one way or another).
Part of the problem was the idea of scriptural inerrancy didn’t account for the obvious differences in the various accounts in the OT (see Kings/Chronicles) and the four gospel accounts.I had to accept the fact that the scriptures in my hand had to be either inspired by God in a different way that the rigid scriptual inerrancy as taught by fundamentals, or dismiss them altogether. I finally decided that God could inspire scripture without necessarily them being perfect accounts, affected by the hand of imperfect men.
Yes, it has been a long road of discovery, and so much more to discover. And I think this approach has widened so much more in gainful insight than I ever had within the confines of the rigid doctrines imposed by the church. It has allowed me to consider many other alternative interpretations and meaning in scriptures. (Not saying I’m right on everything, but it has allowed me more freedom to explore the possibilities).
One thing I found is that the Jewish approach in interpreting scripture involves four levels of understanding:
- Pashat - Simple
- Remiz - Hint
- Drasch - Search
- Sod - Hidden
I’m not going to get into all these, except to say that the bible has many layers of understanding that will require deep meditation and research to peel back those layers. But this has shown me that we need to investigate everything we read in the bible, looking at the not just the text at face value, but consider cultural background, intended audience, and application of the scriptures in their proper context.
It was from this approach to scripture that eventually lead me toward a hopeful UR.
Are you familiar with N.T. Wright’s views on what Paul meant by justification? Wonder if that’s more along the lines of how you understand it now?
On “original sin”, I would HIGHLY recommend “The Idolatry of God” by Peter Rollins. He has a very interesting model of sin. The way he explains it, all sin is idolatry at it’s root. And he explains idolatry as a trinity - original sin, the idol, and the law. The way Rollins explains original sin is as this perceived separation from meaning, where we need to acquire the idol in order to find meaning. He explains how a baby’s entire world is its mother, and when it is in the womb, it is inside this world, but at some point after it is born it perceives this separation and begins searching for meaning outside of itself - this is the “original sin” of that baby. The law serves as a boundary between you and the idol, but oftentimes all this serves to do is either to make you think the idol must really have worth and so you strive all the more, or if you abide by the law you become jealous of all those people who are not abiding by the law. You see these people who are acquiring your idol and you feel animosity towards them because subconsciously you’re thinking of all the pleasure they must be getting from it that you’ve denied yourself. It’s a very, very interesting concept.
I’m not sure what came first Geoff but certainly there were a whole nexus of theological concepts that I began to question at the same time as I began to question ECT. These included -
Original sin (according to Augustine) – interesting thoughts about Peter Rollins there Geoff
Rejection of the ‘world’
Penal Substitution Atonement
Biblical inerrancy (and Dondi’s Jewish four levels of interpretation correspond almost exactly to Origen’s three levels (because the third level is divided into two of increasing depth – 1 Literal, 2. Moral, 3a Allegorical, 3b. Anagogical)
Evangelical exclusivism (greater openness towards other traditions)
Retributive justice as the primary form of justice
Premilleniallism
Violent interpretations of scripture and violent ideas of God
The primacy of patriarchy
Oh yeah, I’d have a very similar list.
By the way - do you have a good recommendation for a book along the lines of various methods of Biblical interpretation like you mentioned? I’ve been wanting to read some Jewish authors in general, and specifically something about various interpretive methods (doesn’t have to be by a Jewish author, though).
Hi Geoff –
I don’t know of one specific book but –
I think you might certainly enjoy ’The Bible Now’ by Friedman and Dolansky – which looks at all of the ethical hot topics of today in terms of what the OT can teach us (and does not draw simplistic dogmatic conclusions btw). I have a hunch you might seriously enjoy this book.
‘Jewish Views of the Afterlife’ by Simcha Raphael also has some very good stuff in it on the subjects most germane to this site.
I think the following site sums up the ‘basics’ of Rabbinic Judaism’s ways of using and interpreting scripture rather well under the categories halakha, aggadata and midrash
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … drash.html
You’ll have to ask Dondi for more about the Jewish fourfold method. If you want a discussion of Origen’s nominally threefold but actually fourfold method let me know and we can start a thread about it
All the best
Dick
Oh yeah, both of those sound very interesting to me! I will definitely check them out - thank you for the recommendations!