Hmmmm… Sounds a lot like the scripture, Dave!
… yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Cor 8:6)
I assumed it would be recognized as such…actually I should probably have given ch/verse…thanks for supplying it!
I’ve been wondering – even if ‘annihilation’ did occur, with a person being snuffed out of existence at a particular moment in time, why would this preclude God bringing that person back into existence at a later time? The idea and memory and information that comprises that person is forever preserved in the mind of God, the ground of all being; and He could certainly bring that person back if He willed it.
So even though I don’t subscribe to the views of annihilation of a person’s entire existence, I don’t think such a view would necessarily conflict with an ultimate universalist outcome. God could bring those people back, to continue to work on reconciling them to Love at a later time?
I do, though, see the ‘old person’, the old nature, the sin within us as being destroyed/annihilated by the consuming fire of our God Who is Love, the new person ‘rising from the ashes’ through Christ.
Actually, anything is possible. Or how about this? Look at the classic book Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind by Richard Maurice Bucke. He was a doctor about 100 years back, who wrote a piece on cosmic consciousness experiences. It has been speculated by some physicists that the universe is consciousness. See “Consciousness Creates Reality” – Physicists Admit The Universe Is Immaterial, Mental & Spiritual. Perhaps they come part of the collective cosmic consciousness of the new heaven and new earth - if they are annihilated - as their state is changed?
There are many people alive right now who can tell you about that.
I have to admit that I had missed this statement made a little while ago so I’m grateful to those who have referred to it.
Words fail me.
It’s kind of related because Aleth decided to drop universalism largely because he thought accepting universalism would surely lead him to drop trinitarianism – not because he could see any causal link for that, but just from watching other people drop it afterward.
Admittedly going into the arguments for or against it would be off topic. For example, if I noted in regard to Dave’s citation of 1 Cor 8:6 that Paul thus imported the person of Jesus Christ into a shema unity statement while also simultaneously insisting we must not worship lesser lords or gods even if they admittedly exist, that would be off topic. 
Well, I came to decide Christian universalism must be true as a deduction from the doctrines of the Trinity; I think that changed my life for the better, although a lot of people (including trinitarians) would disagree. 
As to why there’s an “obsession” over it or why it’s even “an important doctrine”, part of that has to do with chewing over various metaphysical topics, but most of it (in the sense of how the topic has historically developed) has to do with chewing over a ton of scriptural evidence in light of the question of who or what we’re supposed to be religiously serving and why. For example, should we be serving any lesser lord or god than “Hear o Israel YHWH your Elohim YHWH is one”? No. Should we be religiously serving Jesus Christ? Yes. Why? Because Jesus is YHWH our one and only Elohim Who created and sustains the existence of all reality, like… uh… well, like God the Father. But aren’t they distinct persons? Yes. But the Holy Spirit is included in some prayers to the distinct persons of the Father and the Son, and the Son and the Father send the Spirit from the Father, and we are to make disciples by baptising them into the one name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, but we mustn’t religiously serve any lesser lord or god, so…
There’s an obsession over the details, by trinitarians and non-trinitarians alike, because we take our religion seriously enough that we all want to know whom we ought to be properly serving religiously and whom we shouldn’t, even though trinitarians and various non-trin Christians come up with varying answers to that. Or anyway Jesus and the apostles and the OT prophets thought this was important, though admittedly not important enough to spell out systematically. I take it that means God allows a lot of leeway. 
Thus, those (like myself) who feel called to chew over the details for the sake of fidelity to the truth, should not despise those who don’t have time or talent for it or who just want to get on with the business of doing good for other people. But those people shouldn’t despise those who, whether dedicated trinitarians or dedicated non-trinitarians, think the topic is important enough to work at understanding and professing it correctly.
I watched the Journey Home on the Catholic channel EWTN last night. They interviewed a convert from Judaism. What’s interesting is he was both immensely successful at a young age (i.e. 25) and had many experiences of the holy spirit during his conversion journey. His father was disposed with inoperable cancer and he was Jewish. His son asked if he could pray for him. When the father said yes, he felt the holy spirit send energy through him - but his father felt nothing. His father went to Las Vegas to die. During that time, he had some more tests done. They physicians couldn’t find anything wrong. If they didn’t have all the previous medical tests with them, they said they wouldn’t believe he had terminal cancer. Now this might not be as “melodramatic” as TV healers like Benny Hinn - but it’s also far less controversial than Hinn (or others like him) are. No holy water like Leroy Jenkins has. But those who have healings in the Christian tradition, believe it is from the Holy Spirit.
That being said, the site owners and (most of the) founders, specifically wanted a site that was grounded in trinitarian theism, because they believe that’s both true and important; and they have (mostly) invited guest authors and admins who agree with that – and, in my case (at least), who are trained and experienced in actively arguing and defending in favor of orthodox trinitarian theism.
On the other hand, I try hard to find the blurry line between being overly gung ho about it and neglecting the duty for which I was invited here as an admin and guest author. That isn’t easy to do, and often it just comes down to me leaving a thread to further discussion rather than hammering at it.
But then I feel bad when things like this happen, and Awakeningathelia decides to abandon one or the other key gospel assurances (he or she hasn’t said which one he’s thinking of giving up yet; sorry aleth, I don’t remember if you’re he or she, I’m using English neuter ‘he’) because he’s afraid that that’s the only way to keep believing in the Trinity per se.
Thus my replies to Aleth, which to clarify for “Cleverest” I did not say someone has to be a trinitarian to be psychologically assured in their own best responsible judgment that God will save all sinners from sin through Christ. I did say that I routinely find trinitarian non-universalists tacitly or explicitly denying key doctrines of ortho-trin (which are sometimes also key doctrines of various non-trinitarian Christianities, God’s omnipresence for example) in order to affirm a doctrine of final unrighteousness (and thus also a finally hopeless punishment or fate for some sinners). So going back to non-universalism is no guarantee of ortho-trin, and in my experience is even a serious threat to it.
I have also occasionally argued (though not in this thread) that trinitarian theism offers a uniquely strong assurance, in a technical sense (not a psychological one), deductively in favor of some kind of Christian universalism being true. That doesn’t mean I think anything less than ortho-trin would mean universal salvation is necessarily false, though obviously at some point in the removal of doctrines that would be a necessary implication. (e.g. God doesn’t exist; or God exists but cannot affect our system of nature and thus cannot save us; or God exists but doesn’t care to affect our system of nature and thus doesn’t care about saving us, much less ever acts to do so.)
That would be off-topic as well as irrelevant; just by sheer luck, and because I’ve studied a boatload (well, a small boat, but you can fit a lot of books into a small boat 
) of scholarship on the subject 
, I happened to know why Paul did such an importation; and it was not to make a case for the purported trinity. But I digress.
I see your Leeroy ref, Randy… 
Yes, indeed. I am a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is nothing if not Trinitarian. When I listen to or read the various liturgies of the Church, I am struck by how obviously universalistic they are. You think the Bible is universalistic? Well, you’re right, but even more so the liturgy, which dials way down the judgment stuff and dials way up the glad and glorious stuff.
I can’t help but wonder how my fellow Orthodox who are not universalists do it. They have to ignore or at least sideline huge chunks of the liturgy. (“That’s hyperbole. Oh, that isn’t meant literally. More hyperbole. Exaggeration. Eastern exaggeration.” Etc.) Every once in a while there will be a little line somewhere that doesn’t sound universalistic, but when interpreted against the context of the entire liturgy, it obviously becomes a warning against sin.
One example of the general sort of thing Jason is getting at: Today is the feast of Theophany (the baptism of Christ). It is the second most important day on the Eastern Orthodox Church calendar (with Pascha [Easter] being the first). The Church teaches that, because Jesus is God the Son incarnate, when He descended into the baptismal waters, He changed the waters. He energized them. He changed the nature of the waters, so that the waters deify us when we descend into them in Baptism. (In short, Jesus changed the waters. The waters didn’t change Him. The waters change us, but we don’t change the waters.) The liturgy proclaims that Christ thus saved all of creation, and therefore He especially saved all of humanity. If He wasn’t God, His Baptism would not have accomplished any of this. Therefore, if an Orthodox does not believe that Christ saves the entire cosmos (and, with it, all mankind), then that is an implicit denial of Christ’s deity. Christ would be (at best) a sort of demi-god or semi-god who kinda sorta saved some people and some things. This of course would obliterate the dogma of the Trinity.
Dave, obviously no he wasn’t trying “to make a case for the purported trinity” (partly because he doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit there), he was trying to make a case for being charitable toward people who insist on not eating meat which had been sacrificed to idols. Along the way he affirms idols have no power and that also avoiding idolatry is important compared to worshiping the one God (specifically in reference to the shema) instead of any lesser lords or gods.
But people can still come along afterward and notice the implications of how he imports the “one lord Jesus Christ” into a typical affirmation of the absolute unique transcendence of the one God over all lesser lords and gods.
To reply to such inferences by observing that Paul’s purpose wasn’t to make an argument for the trinity, is trivially irrelevant. How he treats Jesus in making his actual argument is however relevant to any questions of whether we should be religiously worshiping lesser lords or gods (absolutely not), whether we should be religiously worshiping Jesus on par with God the Father (yes), and whether Jesus is a lesser lord or god than God the Father (no).
That imo is a faulty line of reasoning, (most basically, a non-sequitur) but is also alas the type of thing I see in many ‘trinitarian’ arguments.
I do worship God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Other than that, verbal formulations that ask for metaphysical commitments just are NOT convincing. Or trivially irrelevant.
But you know, if UR really is true, then God has done a really bad job of communicating it. I mean really bad.
I think the Bible clearly teaches universalism. This is partially obscured by preposterous translations (such as the howler of replacing “Valley of Hinnom” [which is a literal valley just outside of Jerusalem] with “Hell”).
Add to that the fact that most people who believe that the Bible contains God’s written word can’t be bothered to read it, much less study it. Who needs to read the Bible when everybody already “knows” that some people go to Hell?
Add to that the vindictiveness and spite all too many of us have in our hearts, making the doctrine of Hell a sweet one.
Etc.
I’m not surprised at all that so many people believe in Hell.
1 Like
That was well put.
Great op and im hearing where your coming from,as im starting to doubt ur,my spirit since turning to ur has been unsettled.There is so much that can be said about this and i am still searching for answers (although i might never get there).
sorry, but my spirit is unsettled at the thought of precious human beings lost in misery, rebellion and sin forever…not at the thought that maybe, just maybe, God really is big enough and great enough to redeem all His creation.
2 Likes
agreed about the vindictiveness etc …I think some people really wish to believe in eternal torment…after all, ‘somebody’s gotta pay’, right ? ( I’m being sarcastic, hehe)…so yeh, for some people ‘eternal torment’ is a sweet deal…yup.
1 Like