Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?

[Hmm]

Alternatively, why has Christian universalism never gone away?

The question's not discussed in churches and if it's mentioned at all it's usually only to denounce it as a heresy. And yet the belief in universal reconciliation (UR) has been a consistent strand throughout church history. Today, in terms of books sold and YouTube videos watched - the only type of metrics possible as there are hardly any universalist churches around to allow a meaningful count of posteriors on pews - the interest in UR is increasing while mainstream church attendance is declining, certainly in the UK anyway. It seems to me that CF also shows this trend in that threads on UR have considerably more comments and, more significantly, views than those on any other subject.

Could it possibly be that the reason belief in universal reconciliation has never gone away is because it's the truth that scripture points to?

And let's remember who we are and keep it civil folks (assuming anyone replies!).

 

[Aussie Pete]

Alternatively, why has Christian universalism never gone away?

The question's not discussed in churches and if it's mentioned at all it's usually only to denounce it as a heresy. And yet the belief in universal reconciliation (UR) has been a consistent strand throughout church history. Today, in terms of books sold and YouTube videos watched - the only type of metrics possible as there are hardly any universalist churches around to allow a meaningful count of posteriors on pews - the interest in UR is increasing while mainstream church attendance is declining, certainly in the UK anyway. It seems to me that CF also shows this trend in that threads on UR have considerably more comments and, more significantly, views than those on any other subject.

Could it possibly be that the reason belief in universal reconciliation has never gone away is because it's the truth that scripture points to?

And let's remember who we are and keep it civil folks (assuming anyone replies!).

If UR is true, there is no need for the gospel, no need for salvation, no need to preach and teach and no need to tell people to repent. UR is a nice, comfortable idea that makes people feel warm and fuzzy. But it deceives people into thinking that God will let them off the hook for their wicked behaviour.

UR ignores the fundamental problem of fallen man. He is dead. The gospel is not just going to heaven when we die. It's new life in Christ. Those who refuse God's mercy in grace in this life have no opportunity in the next. In fact, they are subject to the second death.

The reason why there are no universalist churches is simple. Why bother? If everyone goes to heaven anyway(as I've said already), the Church becomes irrelevant.

UR is a symptom of the decline of Christianity. It was prophesied long ago - 2 Timothy 4:3 & 4

For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.… such as UR (italics mine).

 

[fhansen]

Alternatively, why has Christian universalism never gone away?

The question's not discussed in churches and if it's mentioned at all it's usually only to denounce it as a heresy. And yet the belief in universal reconciliation (UR) has been a consistent strand throughout church history. Today, in terms of books sold and YouTube videos watched - the only type of metrics possible as there are hardly any universalist churches around to allow a meaningful count of posteriors on pews - the interest in UR is increasing while mainstream church attendance is declining, certainly in the UK anyway. It seems to me that CF also shows this trend in that threads on UR have considerably more comments and, more significantly, views than those on any other subject.

Could it possibly be that the reason belief in universal reconciliation has never gone away is because it's the truth that scripture points to?

And let's remember who we are and keep it civil folks (assuming anyone replies!).

It's popular because people think that eternal torment is inconsistent with a good God. For myself I just know that whatever He does He'll work things out for the ultimate good and to everyone's satisfaction at the end of the day, on the basis of justice and love.

 

[sandman]

I don't know too much about Christian universalism....but from what I remember, I can only say it is seemingly typical of a religion where man waters down the Word of God with his ideas and beliefs of salvation and various others things to make it palatable and attractive to unlearned people of the same passive mindset.
Unlearned does not mean ignorant. It would be unlearned of the Word of God. Because the CU belief adheres to doctrine that is contrary to the Word, thus resulting in the dismissal of many biblical scripture.

 

[Hmm]

If UR is true, there is no need for the gospel, no need for salvation, no need to preach and teach and no need to tell people to repent. UR is a nice, comfortable idea that makes people feel warm and fuzzy. But it deceives people into thinking that God will let them off the hook for their wicked behaviour.

UR ignores the fundamental problem of fallen man. He is dead. The gospel is not just going to heaven when we die. It's new life in Christ. Those who refuse God's mercy in grace in this life have no opportunity in the next. In fact, they are subject to the second death.

The reason why there are no universalist churches is simple. Why bother? If everyone goes to heaven anyway(as I've said already), the Church becomes irrelevant.

UR is a symptom of the decline of Christianity. It was prophesied long ago - 2 Timothy 4:3 & 4

For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.… such as UR (italics mine).

The topic isn't whether UR is true or not - there have been countless threads on CF debating that - but rather why it is has been a constant strand in Christian thought ever since the first church, in fact going back to Paul, and is increasing popular now.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The topic isn't whether UR is true or not - there have been countless threads on CF debating that - but rather why it is has been a constant strand in Christian thought ever since the first church, in fact going back to Paul, and is increasing popular now.

I answered that. It's a sign of the last days deceptions that are flooding what calls itself church. Those deceptions began in Paul's time. Much of what he wrote was to counteract the various heresies that were floating around.

For example, legalism is just as much a problem in this day as it was in Paul's. There has been much debate about the place of the Law in Christianity. That also goes back to Paul's time, hence the letter to the Galatians.

Popularity has never been a criteria for truth. The gospel is offensive and unpopular to most people. Popularity is greatly overrated.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Alternatively, why has Christian universalism never gone away?

The question's not discussed in churches and if it's mentioned at all it's usually only to denounce it as a heresy. And yet the belief in universal reconciliation (UR) has been a consistent strand throughout church history. Today, in terms of books sold and YouTube videos watched - the only type of metrics possible as there are hardly any universalist churches around to allow a meaningful count of posteriors on pews - the interest in UR is increasing while mainstream church attendance is declining, certainly in the UK anyway. It seems to me that CF also shows this trend in that threads on UR have considerably more comments and, more significantly, views than those on any other subject.

Could it possibly be that the reason belief in universal reconciliation has never gone away is because it's the truth that scripture points to?

And let's remember who we are and keep it civil folks (assuming anyone replies!).

Though Jesus Christ of Nazareth said this "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved", many do not want to endure till the end. UR forgoes His prophetic message and replaces it with a flesh driven agenda that erases any and all accountability.
Blessings

 

[RileyG]

Hell and punishment naturally scares people. The Unitarian Universalist is not a Christian denomination, but AFAIK they are the only sect that teaches universalism. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Hmm]

Hell and punishment naturally scares people. The Unitarian Universalist is not a Christian denomination, but AFAIK they are the only sect that teaches universalism. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong

It's why I specified Christian universalism which is a totally different thing, it's Christocentric and with a tradition that goes back to Paul.

I wonder if it's fear of hell so much as seeing it as unscriptural as well as an immoral concept.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's why I specified Christian universalism which is a totally different thing, it's Christocentric and with a tradition that goes back to Paul.

I wonder if it's fear of hell so much as seeing it as unscriptural as well as an immoral concept.

Personally, I don't think any of us gets to put an exclusive and clear claim upon either Jesus or Paul as the origination point of whichever flavor of Eschatology we happen to be emotionally inclined towards.

So, since I don't know clearly, and I'm confident that no one else knows clearly either, I'm willing to cut some slack with my fellow brethren in our common faith, whether they're ECT, Annihilationists or even Universalists.

How about we all start doing this?: cutting each other some slack.

 

[Der Alte]

@Hmm
Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?
Some people don't read the whole Bible they only read the handful of vss. which appear to support "Universalism" and which their "leaders/pastors/teachers," tell them to read. Let us take Matthew 25:46, for instance.

Matthew 25:46
(46) And these shall go away into everlasting [aionios] punishment[kolasis]: but the righteous into life eternal.​

The "Hell No!" bunch will argue that "aionios" translated "everlasting" does not mean "everlasting/eternal" it really means "age long" or some such.
That bunch also claims that ""kolasis" translated "punishment" only means "correction." That is a lexical fallacy. "Kolasis" is derived from a wod that does mean correction but it is a lexical fallacy to insist that the derived word means exactly the same thing as the root word.
The word "kolasis" translated "punishment" occurs only twice in the NT.

1 John 4:18
(18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​

Note in this vs. the person who has "kolasis" is NOT corrected i.e. "is not made perfect."
Now about the meaning of "aionios"

John 3:15-16
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionios] life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionios] life.​

In these two vss. Jesus parallels "aionios" with "shall not perish," twice. If "aionios" does not inherently mean "eternal. everlasting, unending" etc. Jesus could not have used it in parallel to "shall not perish."

 

[RickReads]

Personally, I don't think any of us gets to put an exclusive and clear claim upon either Jesus or Paul as the origination point of whichever flavor of Eschatology we happen to be emotionally inclined towards.

So, since I don't know clearly, and I'm confident that no one else knows clearly either, I'm willing to cut some slack with my fellow brethren in our common faith, whether they're ECT, Annihilationists or even Universalists.

How about we all start doing this?: cutting each other some slack.

I believe truth matters.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

 

[wendykvw]

Alternatively, why has Christian universalism never gone away?

The question's not discussed in churches and if it's mentioned at all it's usually only to denounce it as a heresy. And yet the belief in universal reconciliation (UR) has been a consistent strand throughout church history. Today, in terms of books sold and YouTube videos watched - the only type of metrics possible as there are hardly any universalist churches around to allow a meaningful count of posteriors on pews - the interest in UR is increasing while mainstream church attendance is declining, certainly in the UK anyway. It seems to me that CF also shows this trend in that threads on UR have considerably more comments and, more significantly, views than those on any other subject.

Could it possibly be that the reason belief in universal reconciliation has never gone away is because it's the truth that scripture points to?

And let's remember who we are and keep it civil folks (assuming anyone replies!).

Many are discovering early church history and are discovering Universalism is an ancient teaching, not a modern invention. With access to information on the internet it has made those who wish to do research on the topic much easier and less expensive. Add also the growing amount of Pastors who are also making this discovery and leaving their congregations and starting new churches.


The History of Universalism > Christian Universalist Association

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I believe truth matters.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

I don't want to speak for you, but it almost sounds like you think the truth doesn't matter to the rest of us.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Could it possibly be that the reason belief in universal reconciliation has never gone away is because it's the truth that scripture points to?

I don’t think so because it’s also always been refuted. I think the reason it’s always been around is because it’s appealing to people but that doesn’t make it biblical. In order for a doctrine to be true it cannot contradict any scripture, universalism contradicts quite a few.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don’t think so because it’s also always been refuted. I think the reason it’s always been around is because it’s appealing to people but that doesn’t make it biblical. In order for a doctrine to be true it cannot contradict any scripture, universalism contradicts quite a few.

But isn't this why we have so many denominations today? Because everyone thinks they have "the supreme advantage point on Scripture, and the rest are wrong"?

 

[Jipsah]

I don’t think so because it’s also always been refuted.

Refutation is in the eye of the beholder, innit? Apparently a fair number of people don't think universalism has been refuted at all. And maybe the idea of eternal conscious torment doesn't sort well with "for God so loved the world", and "Father, forgive them..." for a lot of folks. If those are the only two options, UR sounds a whole more like Jesus than ECT does, wouldn't you say?

I still think conditionalism makes the most sense. Nothing in Scripture says that humans live forever by default. It does, however, explicitly say that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life". ETC folks say that death doesn't really mean death, because everyone has eternal life anyway. We just call it death for sinners because it's horrible, but they were gonna live forever anyway. I take it literally. Death means death, as in the act of being dead, erased from time/space, gone, see ya. Eternal life means having received a gift from God allowing you to live forever.

 

[RickReads]

I don't want to speak for you, but it almost sounds like you think the truth doesn't matter to the rest of us.

Well, if your intention is to cut me some slack on Biblical truth I`m not sure how helpful you can be.
To me, the most valuable dialogues are ones in which I am presented with strong arguments.

I usually don't show it but those are the exchanges I appreciate the most in the long run. I`m certainly not here for all the Ad Hominem I get.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don’t think so because it’s also always been refuted. I think the reason it’s always been around is because it’s appealing to people but that doesn’t make it biblical. In order for a doctrine to be true it cannot contradict any scripture, universalism contradicts quite a few.

Personally, I expect inconsistencies between one person and another within the Church. Some of those inconcistencies are usual for the fact that human perspectives are involved in grasping what the meaning and essence of Jesus Christ amounts to "in full." I don't think we should be threatened by this. It's just a part of the reality of God not having given us all that we'd like to know ...

I don't think doctrines are true because they don't contradict other Scripture. I think that if they're true, it's because they are accurate statements about reality as they relate to Christ, not because we expect to find a perfect Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, if your intention is to cut me some slack on Biblical truth I`m not sure how helpful you can be.
To me, the most valuable dialogues are ones in which I am presented with strong arguments.

I usually don't show it but those are the exchanges I appreciate the most in the long run. I`m certainly not here for all the Ad Hominem I get.

Yes, I do attempt to cut fellow Christians some slack. Or at least I do so until one of them thinks they're going to plow over me with their "superior" reasoning for the sixth or seventh time in a row ...

I empathize with your preference in avoiding Ad Hominems, and that is why I didn't apply one to you.