Evangelical Universalism - True or False Doctrine?

[Thaddaeus]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although both camps do have measures of truth on their sides, ultimately they fail based on the following paradigm to which I propose a 3rd alternative.

 

Reason why I reject Calvinism:

(God is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does not want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I reject Arminianism;

(God is not strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I accept Evangelical Universalism:

(God Is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is saved

 

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural.  All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved.

 

Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism.  Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved.  Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested.  I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view.  So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say?

 

Lk 2:10  And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 

Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people?

 

Jn 12:32  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”  

Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation?  The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch.  When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do?

 

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 

This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe.  The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively.

 

 

Rom 11:32  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 

Notice the parallelism in this verse.  If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well.

 

1 Jn 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

Rom 5:15-19 

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one.  Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable.  The gift is greater than the trespass.  To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 

 

1Cor 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Another example of parallelism.  If all die in Adam, all live in Christ.

 

Col 1:18-20  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.  For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross;

If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself.

 

The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught.

 

There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word.  The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts.  This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same.

 

First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well.  However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man.  Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of  the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. 

 

You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin.  This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ.  The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14,  Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. 

 

 

Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm.  But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. 

 

Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross.  He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him.  We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. 

 

We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39.  We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection.  All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53.

Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity.  God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ.

 

There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form.  It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD.

 

 

Why do we recognise authority in the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 AD?

 

Because it represents the Body of Christ.  The Bishops of the entire Church, which is the Body of Christ, met to decide issues, one of which was Universalism.  The Body accepted the findings of that Council.  It is the authority of the Holy Spirit through which they acted.  It was the same pattern that was initially used in the meeing of the Church in Acts 15:6ff.

 

You may not accept the authorty of Christ who is Head of His Body, but I do.

 

 

Christ wasn't at the Councils.  Do you accept all of the findings of all of the councils, and believe that the Pope is the head of the Church under Christ?  If the Bishops of the entire Church, which was the Body of Christ, were making decisions under the authority of the Holy Spirit then it stands to reason that ALL of their decisions held that same authority.  Also, it should be noted that any member of The Body who the Bishops represented who did not agree were cast out from the body... violently.

 

Can you prove Christ was not at the Councils?

 

I accept all of the findings of the Councils.

 

I do not believe the Pope is the Head of the Church.  Christ has always been the Head, the Body has always been enlivened by the Holy Spirit.

 

The Bishops decisions held no authority. They acted on behalf of the Body, but the Body must accept those findings. It is the Body that has the authority through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

I never read that Arius or Nestorius or any other was "violently" removed.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although both camps do have measures of truth on their sides, ultimately they fail based on the following paradigm to which I propose a 3rd alternative.

 

Reason why I reject Calvinism:

(God is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does not want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I reject Arminianism;

(God is not strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I accept Evangelical Universalism:

(God Is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is saved

 

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural.  All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved.

 

Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism.  Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved.  Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested.  I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view.  So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say?

 

Lk 2:10  And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 

Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people?

 

Jn 12:32  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”  

Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation?  The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch.  When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do?

 

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 

This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe.  The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively.

 

 

Rom 11:32  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 

Notice the parallelism in this verse.  If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well.

 

1 Jn 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

Rom 5:15-19 

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one.  Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable.  The gift is greater than the trespass.  To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 

 

1Cor 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Another example of parallelism.  If all die in Adam, all live in Christ.

 

Col 1:18-20  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.  For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross;

If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself.

 

The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught.

 

There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word.  The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts.  This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same.

 

First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well.  However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man.  Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of  the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. 

 

You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin.  This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ.  The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14,  Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. 

 

 

Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm.  But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. 

 

Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross.  He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him.  We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. 

 

We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39.  We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection.  All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53.

Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity.  God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ.

 

There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form.  It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD.

 

 

Why do we recognise authority in the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 AD?

 

Because it represents the Body of Christ.  The Bishops of the entire Church, which is the Body of Christ, met to decide issues, one of which was Universalism.  The Body accepted the findings of that Council.  It is the authority of the Holy Spirit through which they acted.  It was the same pattern that was initially used in the meeing of the Church in Acts 15:6ff.

 

You may not accept the authorty of Christ who is Head of His Body, but I do.

 

 

Christ wasn't at the Councils.  Do you accept all of the findings of all of the councils, and believe that the Pope is the head of the Church under Christ?  If the Bishops of the entire Church, which was the Body of Christ, were making decisions under the authority of the Holy Spirit then it stands to reason that ALL of their decisions held that same authority.  Also, it should be noted that any member of The Body who the Bishops represented who did not agree were cast out from the body... violently.

 

Can you prove Christ was not at the Councils?

 

I accept all of the findings of the Councils.

 

I do not believe the Pope is the Head of the Church.  Christ has always been the Head, the Body has always been enlivened by the Holy Spirit.

 

The Bishops decisions held no authority. They acted on behalf of the Body, but the Body must accept those findings. It is the Body that has the authority through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

I never read that Arius or Nestorius or any other was "violently" removed.

 

 

How can they have acted on behalf of the Body if they had to cut off parts of the Body and only counted the members that they kept?  Are you sure you know what all of the findings of all the Councils were?  And why would you accept their findings in respect of all Doctrine but not accept their submission to the Pope?  Do you think they represented the Body with Christ as their head in some matters but not others?  After the Church split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Orthodoxy do you think any of the Councils had the same authority as before the split?  If so which ones?  Is there a particular Body that you feel now represents Christ in that fullness?  If so who?  If not then which was the last one and why?

 

Here is a brief history of heresy.  The Church Fathers, the Councils, and Papal decree decided what was heresy, the Emperors acted on the basis of that guidance.  http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html  Shouldn't we know them by their fruit?

[Thaddaeus]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although both camps do have measures of truth on their sides, ultimately they fail based on the following paradigm to which I propose a 3rd alternative.

 

Reason why I reject Calvinism:

(God is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does not want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I reject Arminianism;

(God is not strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I accept Evangelical Universalism:

(God Is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is saved

 

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural.  All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved.

 

Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism.  Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved.  Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested.  I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view.  So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say?

 

Lk 2:10  And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 

Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people?

 

Jn 12:32  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”  

Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation?  The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch.  When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do?

 

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 

This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe.  The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively.

 

 

Rom 11:32  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 

Notice the parallelism in this verse.  If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well.

 

1 Jn 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

Rom 5:15-19 

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one.  Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable.  The gift is greater than the trespass.  To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 

 

1Cor 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Another example of parallelism.  If all die in Adam, all live in Christ.

 

Col 1:18-20  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.  For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross;

If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself.

 

The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught.

 

There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word.  The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts.  This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same.

 

First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well.  However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man.  Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of  the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. 

 

You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin.  This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ.  The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14,  Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. 

 

 

Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm.  But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. 

 

Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross.  He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him.  We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. 

 

We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39.  We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection.  All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53.

Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity.  God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ.

 

There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form.  It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD.

 

 

Why do we recognise authority in the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 AD?

 

Because it represents the Body of Christ.  The Bishops of the entire Church, which is the Body of Christ, met to decide issues, one of which was Universalism.  The Body accepted the findings of that Council.  It is the authority of the Holy Spirit through which they acted.  It was the same pattern that was initially used in the meeing of the Church in Acts 15:6ff.

 

You may not accept the authorty of Christ who is Head of His Body, but I do.

 

 

Christ wasn't at the Councils.  Do you accept all of the findings of all of the councils, and believe that the Pope is the head of the Church under Christ?  If the Bishops of the entire Church, which was the Body of Christ, were making decisions under the authority of the Holy Spirit then it stands to reason that ALL of their decisions held that same authority.  Also, it should be noted that any member of The Body who the Bishops represented who did not agree were cast out from the body... violently.

 

Can you prove Christ was not at the Councils?

 

I accept all of the findings of the Councils.

 

I do not believe the Pope is the Head of the Church.  Christ has always been the Head, the Body has always been enlivened by the Holy Spirit.

 

The Bishops decisions held no authority. They acted on behalf of the Body, but the Body must accept those findings. It is the Body that has the authority through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

I never read that Arius or Nestorius or any other was "violently" removed.

 

 

How can they have acted on behalf of the Body if they had to cut off parts of the Body and only counted the members that they kept?  Are you sure you know what all of the findings of all the Councils were?  And why would you accept their findings in respect of all Doctrine but not accept their submission to the Pope?  Do you think they represented the Body with Christ as their head in some matters but not others?  After the Church split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Orthodoxy do you think any of the Councils had the same authority as before the split?  If so which ones?  Is there a particular Body that you feel now represents Christ in that fullness?  If so who?  If not then which was the last one and why?

 

Here is a brief history of heresy.  The Church Fathers, the Councils, and Papal decree decided what was heresy, the Emperors acted on the basis of that guidance.  http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html  Shouldn't we know them by their fruit?

 

As I stated earlier, you are reading into it the RCC bias, their defacto establishment of the Papacy.  I don't submit to the Pope because I'm not RCC first, and secondly because he does not have that authority he thinks he has. I know of no heresy by a papal decree.  I know of several heresies created by Papal decree.

 

However, this thread is not about the  Church, the Body of Christ.  It is about the consistancy and unchangeablness of the gospel of Christ as preserved by the Holy Spirit in time and space. 

 

 Universalism has never been a teaching of the Church from the Apostolic times  to the present time.

[enoob57]

Universalist... your saying God sent them out for no purpose!

Matt 28:19-20

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things

whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end

of the world. Amen.
KJV

It was just busy work   Love, Steven

[MorningGlory]

Folks, PLEASE.....can we not quote 12 previous posts just to answer one line in the very last one?  It makes it terribly hard to read through the thread (especially the way the quotes are displayed now.) If you aren't sure how to cut the posts down, just highlight everything you aren't answering and hit 'delete'. It's so much easier on everyone if we keep our posts down so they are easy to read.   

[Willa]

All I can say to the OP is, Bah, humbug! Keep studying. Sometimes we believe what we want to believe, instead of the truth.

[TsukinoRei]

As I stated earlier, you are reading into it the RCC bias, their defacto establishment of the Papacy.  I don't submit to the Pope because I'm not RCC first, and secondly because he does not have that authority he thinks he has. I know of no heresy by a papal decree.  I know of several heresies created by Papal decree.

 

However, this thread is not about the  Church, the Body of Christ.  It is about the consistancy and unchangeablness of the gospel of Christ as preserved by the Holy Spirit in time and space. 

 

 Universalism has never been a teaching of the Church from the Apostolic times  to the present time.

 

Hmm, it is most certainly plausible that I am viewing your statements through an RCC perspective given that much of Christianity was shaped through centuries of being predominantly Catholic. Are not the same people who selected some scriptures, and eliminated others, and interpreted out of them doctrines such as the Trinity and called other doctrines heresies, the same people who chose the Popes and followed the Popes?  Why would they have authority to do one thing, but not the other?  Universalism does appear to have been a teaching of the early Church and did not become a heresy until after Augustine, in 500.  Up to the 400's it was a predominant doctrine.  

http://www.thebeautifulheresy.com/2005/08/early-church.html

 

In the end or consummation of things, all shall be restored to their original state, and be again united in one body. We cannot be ignorant that Christ's blood benefited the angels and those who are in hell; though we know not the manner in which it produced such effects. The apostate angels shall become such as they were created; and man, who has been cast out of paradise, shall be restored thither again. And this shall be accomplished in such a way, that all shall be united together by mutual charity, so that the members will delight in each other, and rejoice in each other’s promotion. The apostate angels, and the prince of this world, though now ungovernable, plunging themselves into the depths of sin, shall, in the end, embrace the happy dominion of Christ and his saints. - St Jerome

 

“All men are Christ’s, some by knowing him, the rest not yet. He is the Savior, not of some and the rest not. For how is he Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all?” - St Clement of Alexandria

 

 

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/barclay1.html

 

Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification.

Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery." Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way.

 

 

So you see, whether the doctrine is correct or not (for I do not argue in either direction myself) it was present in the early Church among the Church Fathers and was not called heresy until much later.

[kwikphilly]

Hi Elhanan,

     God bless you,I don't think I ever had the pleasure of meeting you before,although I have read many of your posts....so I will take this opportunity to say "hello,it's nice to meet you".....

      I read your 1st post where you quoted several Scriptures that tell us that God will and can save all(through Christ)...we do not tend to limit God as you assumed(or seemed to) ....and you are correct that ALL means ALL,not some....BUT,heres the catch...not everyone accepts this wonderful gift......Salvation is available to all,free to all,Christ died for all,the Good News is for all......................unfortunately,not all will take what is freely available to them...therefore,not all will be saved.

    Narrow is the gate......MANY are called,but FEW are chosen.Wouldn't it be nice if all should not perish but have everlasting life in the presence of our Lord......there are many hardened hearts that just reject God,it's there choice.

                                                                                                                               With love,in Christ-Kwik

[Thaddaeus]

 

As I stated earlier, you are reading into it the RCC bias, their defacto establishment of the Papacy.  I don't submit to the Pope because I'm not RCC first, and secondly because he does not have that authority he thinks he has. I know of no heresy by a papal decree.  I know of several heresies created by Papal decree.

 

However, this thread is not about the  Church, the Body of Christ.  It is about the consistancy and unchangeablness of the gospel of Christ as preserved by the Holy Spirit in time and space. 

 

 Universalism has never been a teaching of the Church from the Apostolic times  to the present time.

 

Hmm, it is most certainly plausible that I am viewing your statements through an RCC perspective given that much of Christianity was shaped through centuries of being predominantly Catholic. Are not the same people who selected some scriptures, and eliminated others, and interpreted out of them doctrines such as the Trinity and called other doctrines heresies, the same people who chose the Popes and followed the Popes?  Why would they have authority to do one thing, but not the other?  Universalism does appear to have been a teaching of the early Church and did not become a heresy until after Augustine, in 500.  Up to the 400's it was a predominant doctrine.  

http://www.thebeautifulheresy.com/2005/08/early-church.html

 

In the end or consummation of things, all shall be restored to their original state, and be again united in one body. We cannot be ignorant that Christ's blood benefited the angels and those who are in hell; though we know not the manner in which it produced such effects. The apostate angels shall become such as they were created; and man, who has been cast out of paradise, shall be restored thither again. And this shall be accomplished in such a way, that all shall be united together by mutual charity, so that the members will delight in each other, and rejoice in each other’s promotion. The apostate angels, and the prince of this world, though now ungovernable, plunging themselves into the depths of sin, shall, in the end, embrace the happy dominion of Christ and his saints. - St Jerome

 

“All men are Christ’s, some by knowing him, the rest not yet. He is the Savior, not of some and the rest not. For how is he Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all?” - St Clement of Alexandria

 

 

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/barclay1.html

 

Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification.

Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery." Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way.

 

 

So you see, whether the doctrine is correct or not (for I do not argue in either direction myself) it was present in the early Church among the Church Fathers and was not called heresy until much later.

 

Hmm, it is most certainly plausible that I am viewing your statements through an RCC perspective given that much of Christianity was shaped through centuries of being predominantly Catholic.

 

Western Christianity is wholly in the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. ONce they separated in 1054 the self proclaimed Popes could do as they pleased, which they did. Eastern Christianity, or Othodox is wholly for 2000 years the same perspective in preserving the original Gospel that was entrusted to the Church, the Body of Christ.

 

Are not the same people who selected some scriptures, and eliminated others, and interpreted out of them doctrines such as the Trinity and called other doctrines heresies, the same people who chose the Popes and followed the Popes?

 

Incorrect. The Church has NEVER had a POPE as you are understanding it from the RCC perspective.  Each Patriarch is elected by the members of that Patriarchy.  But the Patriarch is not the highest order of authority. Every bishop is equal in ecclessiastical authority.  Only in administrative matters does a Patriarch have any sole authority within his own Patriarch. 

 

Why would they have authority to do one thing, but not the other? 

YOur question is based on misunderstanding how the Church functions, rather than as the Rcc has established themselves since they broke from the Church.

Universalism does appear to have been a teaching of the early Church and did not become a heresy until after Augustine, in 500.  Up to the 400's it was a predominant doctrine. 

 

I think you are making the same mistake in understanding terminology again.  The Church has NEVER held such a view as Universalism.  Origin was the first to write about such a notion but it never took root in his lifetime.  It was not until much later, as you state that the someone else actually began to teach it within the Body and became a detriment to the Body, thus the item was brought to the Council, where it was condemned.

 

What you may be confused with is universal capitulation or what today is known as universal reconciliation by Christ through His Incarnation. This is the work of Christ reversing the fall, death which the world as well as man inherited from Adam.  Text such as Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:22, John 6:39, II Cor 5:18-19, Heb 2:14-17 speak about universal reconciliation or the Incarnation of Christ.

 

Under your method of understanding, theologically one would of necessity believe that the Holy Spirit gave the early Church one Gospel, but it was incorrect, at least regarding universalism, and then 400 years later corrected His error. The Church cannot be incorrect since Christ is the Head and the Holy Spirit enlivens that Body.  Men are wrong and many have tried to impose their intepretations upon Christ's Gospel, but all have failed to change the Gospel once given in the beginning. Jude 3. If the Church did in fact believe in Universalism it would still be the same today.

 

So you see, whether the doctrine is correct or not (for I do not argue in either direction myself) it was present in the early Church among the Church Fathers and was not called heresy until much later.

 

it was present in individuals. Every heresy known to man has come from within the Church, not only that but most from bishops gone astray.   The only exceptions in the early Church was Gnosticism and Judeaism. There are many more heresies that are outside the Church today but none are influencing it in any way at present. Paul even warned more about the false teachings from within than from without.  What a man believes and what the Church believes are two different things.

 

 

 

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

As I stated earlier, you are reading into it the RCC bias, their defacto establishment of the Papacy.  I don't submit to the Pope because I'm not RCC first, and secondly because he does not have that authority he thinks he has. I know of no heresy by a papal decree.  I know of several heresies created by Papal decree.

 

However, this thread is not about the  Church, the Body of Christ.  It is about the consistancy and unchangeablness of the gospel of Christ as preserved by the Holy Spirit in time and space. 

 

 Universalism has never been a teaching of the Church from the Apostolic times  to the present time.

 

Hmm, it is most certainly plausible that I am viewing your statements through an RCC perspective given that much of Christianity was shaped through centuries of being predominantly Catholic. Are not the same people who selected some scriptures, and eliminated others, and interpreted out of them doctrines such as the Trinity and called other doctrines heresies, the same people who chose the Popes and followed the Popes?  Why would they have authority to do one thing, but not the other?  Universalism does appear to have been a teaching of the early Church and did not become a heresy until after Augustine, in 500.  Up to the 400's it was a predominant doctrine.  

http://www.thebeautifulheresy.com/2005/08/early-church.html

 

In the end or consummation of things, all shall be restored to their original state, and be again united in one body. We cannot be ignorant that Christ's blood benefited the angels and those who are in hell; though we know not the manner in which it produced such effects. The apostate angels shall become such as they were created; and man, who has been cast out of paradise, shall be restored thither again. And this shall be accomplished in such a way, that all shall be united together by mutual charity, so that the members will delight in each other, and rejoice in each other’s promotion. The apostate angels, and the prince of this world, though now ungovernable, plunging themselves into the depths of sin, shall, in the end, embrace the happy dominion of Christ and his saints. - St Jerome

 

“All men are Christ’s, some by knowing him, the rest not yet. He is the Savior, not of some and the rest not. For how is he Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all?” - St Clement of Alexandria

 

 

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/barclay1.html

 

Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification.

Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery." Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way.

 

 

So you see, whether the doctrine is correct or not (for I do not argue in either direction myself) it was present in the early Church among the Church Fathers and was not called heresy until much later.

 

 

 

Hmm, it is most certainly plausible that I am viewing your statements through an RCC perspective given that much of Christianity was shaped through centuries of being predominantly Catholic.

 

Western Christianity is wholly in the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. ONce they separated in 1054 the self proclaimed Popes could do as they pleased, which they did. Eastern Christianity, or Othodox is wholly for 2000 years the same perspective in preserving the original Gospel that was entrusted to the Church, the Body of Christ.

 

 

 

Are not the same people who selected some scriptures, and eliminated others, and interpreted out of them doctrines such as the Trinity and called other doctrines heresies, the same people who chose the Popes and followed the Popes?

 

Incorrect. The Church has NEVER had a POPE as you are understanding it from the RCC perspective.  Each Patriarch is elected by the members of that Patriarchy.  But the Patriarch is not the highest order of authority. Every bishop is equal in ecclessiastical authority.  Only in administrative matters does a Patriarch have any sole authority within his own Patriarch. 

 

 

 

Why would they have authority to do one thing, but not the other? 

YOur question is based on misunderstanding how the Church functions, rather than as the Rcc has established themselves since they broke from the Church.

 

 

Universalism does appear to have been a teaching of the early Church and did not become a heresy until after Augustine, in 500.  Up to the 400's it was a predominant doctrine. 

 

I think you are making the same mistake in understanding terminology again.  The Church has NEVER held such a view as Universalism.  Origin was the first to write about such a notion but it never took root in his lifetime.  It was not until much later, as you state that the someone else actually began to teach it within the Body and became a detriment to the Body, thus the item was brought to the Council, where it was condemned.

 

What you may be confused with is universal capitulation or what today is known as universal reconciliation by Christ through His Incarnation. This is the work of Christ reversing the fall, death which the world as well as man inherited from Adam.  Text such as Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:22, John 6:39, II Cor 5:18-19, Heb 2:14-17 speak about universal reconciliation or the Incarnation of Christ.

 

Under your method of understanding, theologically one would of necessity believe that the Holy Spirit gave the early Church one Gospel, but it was incorrect, at least regarding universalism, and then 400 years later corrected His error. The Church cannot be incorrect since Christ is the Head and the Holy Spirit enlivens that Body.  Men are wrong and many have tried to impose their intepretations upon Christ's Gospel, but all have failed to change the Gospel once given in the beginning. Jude 3. If the Church did in fact believe in Universalism it would still be the same today.

 

 

 

So you see, whether the doctrine is correct or not (for I do not argue in either direction myself) it was present in the early Church among the Church Fathers and was not called heresy until much later.

 

it was present in individuals. Every heresy known to man has come from within the Church, not only that but most from bishops gone astray.   The only exceptions in the early Church was Gnosticism and Judeaism. There are many more heresies that are outside the Church today but none are influencing it in any way at present. Paul even warned more about the false teachings from within than from without.  What a man believes and what the Church believes are two different things.

 

 

Hmm.  You're very interesting and instructive.  While you tell me that I am mistaken I do not feel like you are talking down to me so thank you for that.  =o)  Thank you for sharing your perspective with me.  

 

Do I now understand you correctly;

 

• that you believe that everything that was decided by the Councils prior to the divide between Eastern and Western Orthodoxy was under the authority of Christ as the Head of the Church, with the councils acting as and on behalf of the Body of Christ?
• that you believe that after the divide between Eastern and Western Orthodoxy it was Western Orthodoxy that followed the path of heresy while the councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church remained the uncorrupted representatives of the Body of Christ with Christ as the Head?
• that you believe that Protestantism, which came out of Western Orthodoxy, remains burdened by the heresies of the Western Orthodox Church?

It is not my intention to put words in your mouth or misrepresent you, this is reflective listening now.  Please do tell me if I have misunderstood you.  (ps. my replies may be delayed for a couple of hours as I'm going out for a bit!)