Universalism

This is eisegesis, and does violence to the plain meaning. Anyone reading or hearing that passage in the 1st century would have recognized exactly what it meant, just as it is clear what it means in translation in the 21st century. Matthew 25 is a great example of what was understood by judgment:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

Whatever. Since the majority of Christians in the 1st Century were Universalist, I agree with you.

 

Rom 2:2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

God is righteous, holy, and just. His judgment of evildoers is called "righteous judgment," and their sentence will be "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish."

If God were to go back on His word that the evildoers would be subject to wrath and would perish, if He were to 'forgive and forget' all the unbelievers' evil deeds and transgressions, and were to allow them the same fate as the believers, would that be more just and righteous than keeping His word and following through with what He's vowed to do?

The second letter to Thessalonians reiterates that God's wrathful judgment is righteous, and tells us that the punishment due to unbelievers and evildoers will be "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord":
2Th 1:4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
2Th 1:5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

I recommend the following book by Archibald Alexander entitled, Universalism: False and Unscriptural (1851). Alexander was a Presbyterian. The text can be downloaded as a pdf file at this website; his written works are listed in chronological order, so scroll down to "1851" almost a quarter of the way down the page. Alexander writes, "We do not hold this doctrine (concerning eternal punishment) because it is agreeable to our feelings, but because we believe God hath revealed it." I might add, we believe in eternal punishment despite our feelings, because feelings can lie, but the word of God does not lie.

 

That is nothing more than wild conjecture.

 

This is postmodern claptrap. What empirical basis do you have for the statement above? Do we have records of polls conducted back then that would tell us this? And why would a group of universalists accept texts that unapologetically teach the opposite? We do not “agree” at all; to assert that we do is to deny all objective meaning to words (which is the true topic of this thread). No impartial historian would (or has) reach(ed) the conclusions you have on this subject. It is not just a matter of what texts mean; it is also a matter of how much a hypothesis can explain the relevant data. Your hypothesis is testable, and it does not explain actual Christian behavior throughout history. Why would 1st-3rd century Christians opt for bloody martyrdom for refusing to utter Kyrios Caesar, if they believed they could be forgiven and redeemed in the next life? Why would 4th-5th century Christians engage in violent riots to destroy centers of pagan worship if its devotees (including Christian apostates) could find salvation after death? Why would great numbers opt for a monastic vocation during the Middle Ages that included personal discipline of the most severe kind, because they believed a secular life would not be conducive to their salvation, if the time for redemption were not limited to this life? And so on, and so on. The univeralist hypothesis is worthless as a historical explanation for actual Christian behavior. That disconfirmation should tell you something.

 

I don't see the point in rehashing this since it was already discussed earlier in this thread and you didn't find my answers convincing. Both Basil the Great and Augustine, who were not Universalists, admitted that the majority of Christians were Universalists. Beyond that, I recommend doing your own research on the topic. I am not Wikipedia.

A great many historians reached this conclusion. Eusebius, who wrote the first consequential History of the Church, was an Universalist, and so many theologians are Universalists that a common quip is that Universalism is the opiate of theologians.

 

There seems to be some circular reasoning in the universalist position. It is claimed that Jesus died to save ALL sinners, and therefore (since He took the penalty for ALL sins) the sinners are released from paying the penalty and will be admitted into God's Kingdom. It is simultaneously claimed that unrepentant sinners will undergo a "mere eon" of suffering and penalization, which implies that these sinners are paying a price for their sins. Which is it? If the sinners are paying a price for their sins, Jesus' redemptive act was not sufficient for them, and therefore they are not saved by His death and resurrection but by their own work of suffering to become purified. But if Jesus took the penalty for the unrepentant sinner as well as the faithful disciple, then no one faces the suffering, destruction, and wrath which the word of God so clearly spells out as being the fate of such sinners.

I have offered many proof texts from scripture to show that the unjust will suffer never-ending wrath and punishment. I would ask that the universalists reciprocate in kind: show me one plain text of scripture in which it is unequivocally asserted that wicked men who've been cast into hell shall be released from their punishment and raised to glory. Or quote one clear passage of scripture showing that all the sins of sinners who die in impenitence will be pardoned in the future world. After all, if God intended to reveal a universalism doctrine to the Church, wouldn't He make it plain in scripture?

 

I will concede that it is valid for a Christian to hope for the eventual salvation of all human beings, in a manner similar that he might hope for a purchased lottery ticket to hit the multi-million jackpot, because the odds are somewhat similar.

But there is no valid basis in scripture for any faith or confidence that all will be saved. Indeed, scripture says the opposite.

 

Augustine did not say that the majority of Christians were universalists. I have, in fact, addressed this very claim, either in this thread or in a different one on this site (I don’t remember which). You have not addressed the lack of explanatory power of your hypothesis, and telling me to “do my own research” (I have), because you are “not Wikipedia” (obviously), is no defense of your position. It’s not my job to sustain your arguments for you. You’re the one making the assertions. You either intend to persuade or you don’t.

You asserted that “a great many” historians (does that mean “most”?) reached your conclusion: name them. I can name plenty of quite prominent ones off the top of my head - all of whom I have personally studied - that were not.
Was Gibbon a universalist?
Newman?
Hooker?
Bull?
Dix?
Hanson?
Pelikan?
Ayres?
Barnes?
Gilson?
Surely in your vast researches you have read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or The Arians of the Fourth Century (as I have), and know the answer to this rhetorical question, as I do.

You may of course continue to assert that this or that Church Father or ecclesiastical writer was a universalist, or that this or that passage that clearly does not teach universalism actually does, now that you’ve arrived on the scene to redefine all these words that the prior 20 centuries of Christian tradition apparently misunderstood, but what is asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence. No research of my own is required. It’s fine to have one’s own convictions about things, but to foist them upon figures of the past without evidence is poor historical judgment and borders on dishonesty, which becomes especially grave when one identifies them with the Gospel.

 

Irenaeus certainly wasn't a universalist. Nor were Cyprian, Clement of Rome, Hippolytus, John Chrysostom, or Justin Martyr. Perhaps some people in the First or Second Centuries were, but a majority? Is there even clear and convincing evidence of a significant minority in that time period? I doubt it. More likely it was a fringe element, if that.

 

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Moses was the type, and Christ is the antitype, in this example posed by Jesus. If we suppose that ALL will be given eternal life whether they believe or not, the entire example falls apart! One might as well say that gazing upon 'the serpent on the pole' was totally unnecessary and that all the people bitten by venomous snakes would have lived, as to say that all unrepentant sinners will have eternal life with God.

But Jesus explicitly said that unbelievers "shall not see life" (John 3:38). Did Jesus lie?? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar (Rom. 3:4).

 

Thank you for proving my point. No use in rehashing. You didn't pay attention the first time.

 

In (by far) the greatest share of instances where it is used in the Bible, aionios indicates a time of unlimited duration. Most certainly it is so used in relation to God, the characteristics of God, and the future blessed state of the saints. For us to assume that the Spirit-inspired writers were so careless as to use this word over and over to indicate eternity and then, with no clear indicator of different intended meaning, to suddenly use the word to mean a limited-duration time period (an eon or 'age'), we need more than the mere suggestion of the possibility. We need some definite reason to infer the change from the word's usual, obvious meaning to a different meaning. If they intended to tell us that the future suffering of the unrepentant sinners would be only temporary, would they use a word that could so easily mislead us and so easily be misconstrued? Is it believable, for instance, that Jesus would be quoted as having used the same aionios twice in the same sentence (Matt. 25:46) with two distinct, drastically differing meanings? Would our Lord have been so careless? Would Matthew?

If we had some definitive, clear and convincing teaching of universalism in any of the Gospels or Epistles... if we were given a specific statement averring to its validity... then we would have some reasonable basis to look for this alternate meaning of aionios and to assume that the many usages of the word "all" are to be interpreted with the universalist meaning. But the word of God lacks any such clear, specific teaching of universal salvation. Instead, we have numerous clear statements (even by Jesus Himself) that are most readily understandable as contradictory to universalism.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. If we examine the context of Jesus' statement, we see that He is teaching about the day of final judgment. First He returns (v. 31), then He separates (v.32), then He pronounces His judgment of eternal blessing upon His sheep (the believers, the Church, v. 34-40), then He pronounces His judgment of punishment upon the remainder (the unbelievers, v. 41-46). Since this clearly is the time of final judgment, the sentence of punishment must be of the same duration as His sentence of blessing; there is no more time or opportunity for repentance, coming to faith, conversion, etc., because this is happening at the final judgment. If Christ were going to save people out of perdition, surely He would have done so prior to final judgment.

Thus, the universalists' wishful-thinking interpretation of aionios simply is so unlikely to be true as to approach utter impossibility. Those who cling to it anyway do so in spite of the overwhelming weight of scriptural evidence.

We simply must face the fact that there are people "whose end is destruction" (Philippians 3:19) and "whose end is to be burned" (Hebrews 6:8) in "fire that shall never be quenched" (Mark 9:43-48), people "whose end shall be according to their works" (2 Cor. 11:15). This fact is uncomfortable, but mayhap it will encourage multitudes to seek God's face and to persevere in faith until the end.

1Pe 4:17-18 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

 

This came across my Facebook feed. I thought I'd share.

100 Scriptural Proofs That Jesus Christ Will Save All Mankind:
https://www.tentmaker.org/books/Scr...S3QPhyauLw7YUC8zzLOaw7s8pu6Yb7q2Ehsa76jknqkNY

 

Let's examine the first 20 of this list:

1. "He hath made of one blood, all nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the earth." Acts 17:26.
This says nothing of universalism. God also made Lucifer and the angels who fell, as well as all the animals. Will they all receive salvation?

2. "Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us?" Mal. 2:10
John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

3. All men, of right, belong to God. "Behold, all souls are mine," saith the Lord. "As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine." Ezek. 18:4
This just tells us that God has every right to judge us as He wills and to decree our eternal destinies. Who are we to question His justice?

4. "Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Psalms 2:8 "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." John 3:35
The psalm foretells the grafting in of the Gentiles. The other scripture tells us that Jesus is in charge of humanity and the judging of people, not that He will forgive every sin and sinner.

5. "Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." John 17:2
We won't know until the afterlife how many, or which people, He will give eternal life to.

6. "All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out."
Jesus never said that He would "nowise cast out" those who refuse to come to Him. Instead, He specifically said, "him that cometh to me."

7. "Who will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth." KJV 1Tim. 2:4
Alexander writes in his book, "This text does not assert any thing respecting the event of the salvation of all men ; it
only declares that the salvation of all men is a thing which in itself considered, is agreeable to
the will of God. But it can be shown from scripture, in many passages, that that which is
consonant to the will of God does not always take place." For example, God hates sin, yet we cannot argue from this fact that sin does not exist.

8. 1 Tim. 2:1. "I exhort, therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men."
Would God exhort the saints to pray for the salvation of all people, if all people were already (virtually by default) going to be saved anyway? Did God ever exhort us to pray that the sun would come up tomorrow?

9. (covered in #7)

10. (covered in #7)

11. (covered in #7)

12. "God is love." 1 John 4:8. "Love worketh no ill." Rom. 13:10.
“The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he" (Deut. 32:4).
"You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy." (Lev. 19:2)
God is love, but He also is upright, holy, righteous, and just. Other parts of 1 John make plain that God's love is not an assurance of salvation to every sinner.
1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1Jn 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." John 3:16
Let's not leave off the rest of Jesus' words!
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

He who distorts the truth by use of incomplete quotes is not worthy of serious consideration. Nonetheless, I shall continue.

14. And Jesus declared, "for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." Luke 6:35.
Truly, God is kind and merciful even to the unrighteous, for He provides for their temporal needs and gives them every opportunity during their lives to come to faith.
"...for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Rom. 12:19,20).
Why are the good things from God (often given through us) to the unrepentant likened to "hot coals on his head"? It is because in the day of judgment, the unbeliever will see how much God did to try to talk him out of condemning himself.

15. "Love worketh no ill."
And yet, "He that loveth not knoweth not God" (1 John 4:8); "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist" (1 John 4:3).
"We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:14-15

16. The wisdom of God is "full of mercy," and "without partiality." James 3:17.
God's mercy is not unlimited. Or why did He destroy all but eight people with a flood, and open the earth to swallow disobedient Israelites, and destroy Sodom & Gomorrah with brimstone?
But James was merely contrasting God's wisdom against "earthly, sensual, devilish" wisdom which produces "bitter envying and strife in your hearts" (verses 15-16).

17. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Ezek. 33:11
That and $2 will get you a cup of coffee! God has no pleasure in sin, either, but sin happens all the time. And the death of the wicked will happen, too.

18. "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Rev. 4:11
That's why God is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power. It's not why we should expect to get everything we want, such as the salvation of every unrepentant child of the devil.
Consider what else it says in Revelation:
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

19.(covered in #16)

20. "So shall by word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11. "I will do all my pleasure." 46:10
Since it pleases the Lord to judge the unrighteous according to their works and to cast them into the lake of fire (the second death), who are we to second-guess Him?

I think that should be enough to demonstrate to any reader the weakness of these allegations. "Tentmaker" builds a flimsy house of cards (not even as sturdy as the cheapest camping tent), and God only needs one breath of the Spirit to knock down the entire structure.

 

I'm not sure heave would truly be heaven if it had cockroaches...

 

Looking a bit further down the linked page by "tentmaker," one comes to:

THE TESTIMONY OF PETER
66. Peter saw, in the vision of the vessel like a sheet knit at the four corners, that all men came down from heaven; that they are all encircled in the kind care of God, while here on earth; and , that "all will be drawn up again into heaven." (Acts 10:15; 11:5-10)​

Is that really what the Bible says? Let's look at the actual scriptures now, shall we?
Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Act 11:5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
Act 11:6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 11:7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
Act 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
Act 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Act 11:10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.

Do these verses tell us that "Peter saw, in the vision...that all men came down from heaven"? No! It says Peter saw a bunch of animals and birds, not men!

God gave Peter a vision so he would not regard Gentiles as "unworthy" of salvation (because Peter tended to think that salvation was only for the Jews). Therefore, Peter went with the three Gentiles to meet Cornelius and his group; he taught them about Jesus, and they came to faith in Christ:

(Act 10:34-44) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all: ) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.​

This account is a textbook example of how people come to be partakers of God's Kingdom. They hear the good news of Jesus' redemptive death and resurrection, they believe in Jesus as their Redeemer, they receive the Holy Spirit, and then they get baptized.

How does anyone read this account in the Bible and somehow think it proves that unredeemed, unrepentant, faithless people who are dead in their sins will be given a 'pass' by Jesus into His Kingdom? What was this "tentmaker" fellow smoking??