Talk:Universalism

From Theopedia

Is Universalism more of a movement or a worldview? JordanBarrett (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2006 (EST)

Can we find another name for "Christian universalism"? It's like a movement like open theism calling themselves adherents of "Christian open theism", etc. -Aaronshaf 06:04, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Like it or not, the term "Christian Universalism" is a popular designation, just google it to see. CARM also recognizes the term. A more technically appropriate term (in my mind) might be Universal Reconciliation based on a universal understanding of the work of Christ. The same words describing Christian Universalism would also apply to the designation Universal Reconciliation. Just my 0.02. Gomarus 06:26, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

I think one motivation for avoiding such a term is that it might confuse readers. I of course would prefer "Universal reconciliation". -Aaronshaf 06:34, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I've never had a "universalist friend" yet, but if I did, I'd consider them a brother in Christ. I don't see it as an essential doctrine, although I think it has negative implications for the rest of one's theology. I'm ok with what we do as long as we don't start saying that a universalist is not a Christian. Perhaps I'm opening up a can of worms. ;) JordanBarrett (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Not even bringing people into the picture, calling a doctrine "Christian" rhetorically grants some legitimacy to it. -Aaronshaf 09:54, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Should we stop calling doctrines like infant baptism, gifts of healing, contemporary worship, and the like, Christian? If so, this simply promotes the neverending battles that has split Protestantism farther than the eye can see over non-essential doctrines. JordanBarrett 10:39, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

I should say, I do see what you're saying. I think universalism is bogus (sorry to anyone out there), but I do see some legitamacy to it. It's not as if they're all blind and stupid - they have their reasons, even if I think they're poorly founded. But, again, I think we need to leave room in Christianity for a healthy amount of diversity. I'm not trying to go postmodern on you here, but I fear that Christians have so harshly reacted to postmodernism's affirmation of diversity (where truth goes out the window) that allowing any diversity seems to make us cautious. JordanBarrett 10:49, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

This isn't really an issue for me of whether you can be an authentic, but messed up Christian who is ignoring the Bible passages which scream out against universalism. This is an issue of being faithful and loving teachers, who remove as much confusion as possible, and provide as much clarity as possible. I don't think it serves the laymen very well to allow proponents of horrible doctrines (this includes open theism and universalism, not infant baptism, etc) to leverage some rhetoric that creates some fog. I want to describe universalism (and its various kinds) with accuracy, but as I've said before, I don't think being accurately representative of another's aberrant view requires me using all their lingo/rhetoric. -Aaronshaf 10:58, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

I've never objected to being clear. Change the section title all you want. We've disagreed abotu this before, but I beleive being fair to someone's view means allowing it to be couched in their terms, rhetoric, etc... From there, you can clearly state that, "when [universalists] say ____ it really means ____ and the implications of this are _____ [negative]." Perhaps you're not required to do this, but I think you'll avoid a lot of issues that waste your time if you did this. Just my opinion. JordanBarrett 11:13, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

I wouldn't have any problem doing that in sentence form, it's the overall title/subtitles that I am concerned about. -Aaronshaf 11:29, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Page number

We need a page number for the "Background" section. I would be a "citation needed", but I'm not sure it would be clear what I'm saying. Is there a way I can put the template there, yet reword it? JordanBarrett 11:44, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Draft

I've made some changes to the draft version (link). Wondering what people's thoughts are. -Anam 20:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not prepared to accept your edits/additions in the current condition. Two primary reasons are: (1) I don't see "universal religion" as a significant connotation for the term "universalism", nor do I see its mention here as particularly relevant or helpful. (2) Your distinction between "will be saved" and "can be saved" is not clear and not cited from a reputable source. The paragraph reads like ones opinion rather than succinct coherent statements. Therefore I am removing your added text from the draft and placing it here in the Discussion page for additional consideration and revision. Jim Ellis 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jim for your thoughtful response. Though I'm a bit confused by your selective usage of "I" and "we," (I haven't been approached by anyone else but you and Jordan, have I?) you do mention two specific issues, which, while I don't think they should be particularly barring for the edit to be rejected wholesale, (the pleasant fact is that) there are only two of them (with apologies to Mencken), and I will deal with these tomorrow, or rather later today (Tuesday). PS: You wrote: "The paragraph reads like ones opinion rather than succinct coherent statements." If you could be specific about which "paragraph" or else particular parts you are talking about (surmising this refers to something other than your two listed points), we can deal with those intelligently. Regards, -Anam 10:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoted Material Start Universalism refers to two distinct theological concepts, which in context may each be called "universalism" Universal salvation or universal reconciliation: A view arguing that all human beings can receive salvation in Heaven, without regard to what they may believe. Universal religion: A religious tradition wherin all are welcome, in contrast to religions which are rooted in ethnic concepts. According to universal salvation, God finds little or no salvific relevance in the abstract ideas, even theological ones, that one may hold. He instead, in administering His Heavenly Kingdom, judges each human being based on their love, their goodness, and their sin. Universalism simply deprecates the condemnatory references to "hell" found in many mainstream Christian denominations, rejecting views which assert salvation by faith or religious belief, and states that these are too narrow, esoteric, or self-promoting to be valid for Him who created all beings. Opposition to universal salvation lacks a formal term aside from the overly general "exclusivism," but a common criticism of universalism from exclusive views is the claim that universalists believe that "all will be saved," and while this critical assertion is factually incorrect, it is nevertheless often repeated. A more correct expression is "all can be saved," conditional only upon goodness. Hence while Universalists may not believe that God gives "eternal punishment" to anyone, Universalists in fact do understand that certain beings deserve and in fact receive Hell and death. But instead of believing in punishment, forced conversion in Heaven, or destruction for non-Christians and even Christians of other denominations, Universalists emphasize the universal illumination of God's presence and the universally-relevant teachings of Jesus as the fundamental concepts that define true Christianity. Universalism has been asserted at various times in different contexts throughout the history of the Christian church. A recent poll by Time Magazine found that most Americans, including 57% of Evangelicals, accept the concepts defined in Universalism.[1] Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II, in his Redemptoris Missio, outlined "salvific universality" as a fundamental Christian doctrine.[2] Quoted Material End

Aman, when I used the term "we" on your Talk Page, I was explaining the position of Theopedia which we Admins have collectively expressed. When I use the term "I" above, I am reflecting the fact that my latest actions are unilateral, not a result of committee discussion, and therefore open for other Admins to voice opinion. As I see it, the bolded text above is not consistent with "universalism" as defined at CARM or in Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary. Therefore reputable published citations must be given to support these claims. You may be presenting a brand of universalism which differs from the normal understanding -- but it is the normal understanding which this article is addressing. This is one reason why I have moved the material from the unapproved draft status to this Discussion page. My time is limited and therefore I suspect working thru this in more detail to reach a conclusion which will satisfy us both may be a slow process. Sincerely, Jim Ellis 12:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

James (by the way its "Anam," not "Aman/Amman"), I don't quite have time tonight to post anything of length. Not that I lack the material; I've written up a few pages just this afternoon; I just don't think I can edit it all down well enough to be happy with it if I send it off tonight. So, I too have time issues. You used the terms "reputable sources" (compare "reliable") and "normal understanding;" terms which are suspect in any case; not to single out this one. If by "reputable" you really just mean "conservative evangelical Reformed Protestant" theologians in particular, then please just say so, instead of using terms like "reputable." For sake of clarity and open discussion, I will of course indicate any such case where there appears to be any similar confusion about terms.

With that out of the way, we should start small. A recent case where the "heresy of universalism" made the news is that of Carlton Pearson: the 'Inclusionism' deemed heresy article covers most of it, albeit somewhat inaccurately (which I will get into tomorrow):

"A popular black preacher [Carlton Pearson, pastor of Higher Dimensions Family Church in Tulsa, OK] has been found guilty of the "heresy of inclusionism" after a year-long debate among his fellow bishops on whether non-Christians can be admitted to heaven. [Pearson] was informed last month that he was preaching theological error and would not be allowed to preach at any of the churches connected to the Cleveland-based Joint College of African-American Pentecostal Bishops Congress. The Joint College numbers about 160 leaders of independent black churches."

The article fails to treat Pearson's views accurately, perhaps because of the editorial views of the paper, and perhaps also due to Pearson's less-than perfect or else somewhat inconsistent explanations. Taking a basic example, it says:

"Inclusionism" is a doctrine that all people, not just Christians, are bound for heaven; that hell does not exist; and that Jesus Christ will not be returning to Earth."

The term "Inclusionism," short for the "Gospel of Inclusion," is Pearson's own formulation, and thus is his to define as he likes. Thus it is not really "a doctrine," but simply a concept that he promotes. The writer obviously doesn't understand or else has no consideration of the distinctions. "Inclusionism" is of course a largely universalist formulation, with some creative caveats, and in the few years since, Pearson appears to have reformulated his views a bit. My point is here that even where a universalist has knowledge and understanding, his concepts may not necessarily be all correct. The same goes for anyone, in fact. Likewise it is interesting to deal with how various people appear to misrepresent his views, which, if one reads them accurately, are a bit more nuanced than simply "hell does not exist."

And I did get a chance to read some of the CARM/Slick website's treatment of universalism, as well as a couple other things. I note also that even Matthew Slick leaves himself open to the concept that 'a universalist can be a Christian' (as he defines it) provided that certain Christological conditions are met. It's an interesting view, and regardless of the issues, there is certainly something to be said for those who try to help people dispense with false teachings. Regards, -Anam 07:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)