Universalism

[wigginhall]

I think there is semi-conscious dishonesty, which is a bit like Sartre's bad faith.   In fact, I suspect it is quite common, in situations where I refuse to acknowledge to myself that I am being economical with the truth. 

It connects with self-deception in Sartre's work.

[Rhiannon]

Who cares about the norty step?  Good company there, I expect.  Still I agree it's not good to be dissecting a particular person.

I've been accused in the past of being Universalist.
To me it means believing that there is more than one way and seeing the integrity in beliefs that are not our own.

I was a universalist in that I believed in universal salvation. I never had such venom from my then fellow believers over any other issue, not even gay marriage.

I think Wiggs is right in that it can be seen as removing the need for Christ, or more specifically the Cross, but I also felt that quite a few were miffed at the thought of losing their special status as one of the saved.

[Rhiannon]

I think there is semi-conscious dishonesty, which is a bit like Sartre's bad faith.   In fact, I suspect it is quite common, in situations where I refuse to acknowledge to myself that I am being economical with the truth.

Or not wanting to look at truths (whatever they are) the we find uncomfortable.

[wigginhall]

(last but one post). That's a good point, Rhiannon.  There is that sense, for some Christians, that they are the elect. 

[Brownie]

Wiggi, you mean like self delusion I think.  I expect we are all guilty of that at times, sometimes it can be soothing but it doesn't last.

Rhi, I know exactly what you mean about the venom and loss of special status.  I've received many a battering on forums for my attitude.

[Rhiannon]

(last but one post). That's a good point, Rhiannon.  There is that sense, for some Christians, that they are the elect.

Yes, they are the older sons pissed off by the prodigal. Its all in the Bible, mate.

[wigginhall]

Or not wanting to look at truths (whatever they are) the we find uncomfortable.

In some ways, once you accept the idea of psychological growth, you are going to accept the idea that we would rather not look at some things, but gradually, (or maybe suddenly), you become able.   Very painful, often. 

I was reading Sylvia Plath's diaries, and there is an amazing section where she realizes how much she hates her mother.  But she always has, but concealed it from herself (and presumably her mother!).

I don't think this is dishonest, but it is inauthentic, or something like that.

[Rhiannon]

In some ways, once you accept the idea of psychological growth, you are going to accept the idea that we would rather not look at some things, but gradually, (or maybe suddenly), you become able.   Very painful, often. 

I was reading Sylvia Plath's diaries, and there is an amazing section where she realizes how much she hates her mother.  But she always has, but concealed it from herself (and presumably her mother!).

Yes, I understand this (not that I hate my mother).

[Shaker]

I was a universalist in that I believed in universal salvation. I never had such venom from my then fellow believers over any other issue, not even gay marriage.

I think Wiggs is right in that it can be seen as removing the need for Christ, or more specifically the Cross, but I also felt that quite a few were miffed at the thought of losing their special status as one of the saved.

The idea of the main pleasure of being in the club is to enjoy the misery of those outside it goes back at least to Aquinas, and doubtless well before.

Jehovah's Witnesses are a little like this, aren't they? Only 144,000 will be saved. I'm pretty sure there are more than 144,000 JWs in the world, so how they square that one is anybody's guess.

[Rhiannon]

The idea of the main pleasure of being in the cub is to enjoy the misery of those outside it goes back at least to Aquinas, and doubtless well before.

Jehovah's Witnesses are a little like this, aren't they? Only 144,000 will be saved. I'm pretty sure there are more than 144,000 JWs in the world, so how they square that one is anybody's guess.

If I understand it correctly, being a JW is a step towards being one of the saved but it is actually reliant on a revelation from God. They go to heaven and everyone else - including surplus JWs - go to heaven on earth, as 'the other sheep'. JW literature often promotes a Garden of Eden kind of afterlife.

[Shaker]

Surplus JWs 

[wigginhall]

Still on dishonesty, Freud used the word 'scotoma' which is obviously 'blind spot', and argued that everybody has them.   In fact, you could argue that they are necessary and healthy, when we are young, but less so, as we grow up.   Being authentic is not always a good idea.

[Shaker]

Still on dishonesty, Freud used the word 'scotoma' which is obviously 'blind spot', and argued that everybody has them.   In fact, you could argue that they are necessary and healthy, when we are young, but less so, as we grow up.   Being authentic is not always a good idea.

No doubt Freud held that they were at some level - albeit unconsciously - deliberate rather than automatic?

[Dicky Underpants]

Jehovah's Witnesses are a little like this, aren't they? Only 144,000 will be saved. I'm pretty sure there are more than 144,000 JWs in the world, so how they square that one is anybody's guess.

Rhiannon is right - JWs may be a bit stupid, but not that stupid. The 144,000 are the really special ones, destined for a spiritual eternity: the rest will live a perfected physical existence. Strangely enough, the spiritual elect only includes those who've lived post-Jesus, and so excludes worthies such as Noah, Moses, David, Solomon and Isaiah.

I wonder if John the Baptist got enough of the 'full revelation' to qualify for the spiritual lot? I may lose a lot of sleep wondering.....

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No there isn't. Here's Wiki for example:

Dishonesty is to act without honesty. It is used to describe a lack of probity, cheating, lying or being deliberately deceptive or a lack in integrity, knavishness, perfidiosity, corruption or treacherousness. Dishonesty is the fundamental component of a majority of offences relating to the acquisition, conversion and disposal of property (tangible or intangible) defined in criminal law such as fraud.

Lying is dishonest, but not all dishonesty is lying. Selective quoting is one example of "lacking in integrity" but I wouldn't go so far as to call it lying. That's why I used the term "dishonest" rather than "lying".

As I don't suppose we'll agree about this though, I'm not sure there's any more to discuss.

Why do you think that quote makes your case at all? Seems to obviously build up mine.

[Nearly Sane]

I think there is semi-conscious dishonesty, which is a bit like Sartre's bad faith.   In fact, I suspect it is quite common, in situations where I refuse to acknowledge to myself that I am being economical with the truth. 

It connects with self-deception in Sartre's work.

I don't disagree that that is true BUT I think defining it in others is hugely dubious.

[Jack Knave]

In some ways, once you accept the idea of psychological growth, you are going to accept the idea that we would rather not look at some things, but gradually, (or maybe suddenly), you become able.   Very painful, often. 

I was reading Sylvia Plath's diaries, and there is an amazing section where she realizes how much she hates her mother.  But she always has, but concealed it from herself (and presumably her mother!).

I don't think this is dishonest, but it is inauthentic, or something like that.

It's called repression.

[Nearly Sane]

Still on dishonesty, Freud used the word 'scotoma' which is obviously 'blind spot', and argued that everybody has them.   In fact, you could argue that they are necessary and healthy, when we are young, but less so, as we grow up.   Being authentic is not always a good idea.

Surely then the claim that someone has a scotoma on something may be one's own scotoma?

[Jack Knave]

Surplus JWs 

Number 144,001 must really feel pissed off!!!

[Jack Knave]

No doubt Freud held that they were at some level - albeit unconsciously - deliberate rather than automatic?

You do what you need to do to survive.

[Jack Knave]

Rhiannon is right - JWs may be a bit stupid, but not that stupid. The 144,000 are the really special ones, destined for a spiritual eternity: the rest will live a perfected physical existence. Strangely enough, the spiritual elect only includes those who've lived post-Jesus, and so excludes worthies such as Noah, Moses, David, Solomon and Isaiah.

I wonder if John the Baptist got enough of the 'full revelation' to qualify for the spiritual lot? I may lose a lot of sleep wondering.....

If it is post Jesus then that excludes Jesus....?

When Christ transfigured wasn't he seen with Moses?

[DaveM]

Have we established yet why some Christians dislike the concept of universal salvation?

The reason why many Christians do not subscribe to Universalism (and why all Christians should not) is that it is not supported by Scripture.  So while it might intuitively have a good deal of appeal to Christians, there is no escaping the fact that we need to do a balancing act on a Scriptural knife edge. Because the Scriptures are quite clear that while God is a God of love who went to great lengths to procure the opportunity for salvation for all, He is equally a holy God who cannot tolerate sin.  Thus, if his free gift of salvation is rejected there are consequences, however uncomfortable that concept might be, even for many Christians.

In some ways universalism is a reflection of Western culture.  It is of interest that when the Gospel was brought to Africa subjects such judgement and its consequences were not an issue for the listeners.  It was when subjects such as turning the other cheek, going the extra mile and feeding you enemy when he was hungry came up that the early missionaries lost their audience who were often affronted by any such suggestions.

On a lighter note perhaps all will get to heaven eventually.  I suspect that for many on this forum the idea of having me remind them every morning that I was right and they were wrong would be – well – sheer hell.

[DaveM]

I was a universalist in that I believed in universal salvation. I never had such venom from my then fellow believers over any other issue, not even gay marriage.

I think Wiggs is right in that it can be seen as removing the need for Christ, or more specifically the Cross, but I also felt that quite a few were miffed at the thought of losing their special status as one of the saved.

The tenor of quite a few of the recent posts on this subject have concerned the idea that Christians believe that only they, and none other, get to heaven.  In terms of my understanding of the teaching of Scripture this is a serious misconception and is simply not correct.

The classical text verse used to support this view is Peter’s statement in Acts 4:12 ‘And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.’   So it is only Jesus who can save.  This is the unambiguous claim of Scripture and I believe it is the absolute truth.

The problem arises when many Christians conclude that the corollary to this Scripture is that only Christians find salvation and get to heaven.  Such a conclusion is false and stands in contradiction to several other Scriptural passages.  Some examples.

In John 5:24 Jesus says, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

So as a Christians I will not appear before God’s Judgement Throne.  Through my belief in Jesus I have already be declared (not found) not guilty and have eternal life through grace by faith.

Now there are two great judgements described in the New Testament.  The first is in Matt 25:31-46, sometimes referred to as the Judgement of the Nations.  The second is the Great White Throne Judgement of Revelation 20:11-15.  Now if Christians do not come under judgement then there can be no Christians appearing before these tribunals.  And yet in both cases there are those who find salvation.  And the basis for their salvation is their works, not grace.  Who are these people?  If not Christians they can only be from those of other faiths or even those of no faith.

So while Universalism is not supported by Scripture, neither is the teaching that only Christians are saved.  There will be both surprising additions and surprising omissions when the roll is called up yonder.

So the only remaining issue is to reconcile the truth that while salvation is only found in Jesus this is not necessarily exclusive, with non-Christians also able to find salvation.  But a little bit of thought will reveal that that is easily done.           

[torridon]

The reason why many Christians do not subscribe to Universalism (and why all Christians should not) is that it is not supported by Scripture.  So while it might intuitively have a good deal of appeal to Christians, there is no escaping the fact that we need to do a balancing act on a Scriptural knife edge. Because the Scriptures are quite clear that while God is a God of love who went to great lengths to procure the opportunity for salvation for all, He is equally a holy God who cannot tolerate sin.  Thus, if his free gift of salvation is rejected there are consequences, however uncomfortable that concept might be, even for many Christians.

Makes no sense to me. If God is a God of love he will do what is best for all without fear or favour, that simply follows from being a God of love. If God is going to discriminate on some basis of people's cognitive ability to recognise truth then he is falling well short of being all that he could be.

[floo]

Makes no sense to me. If God is a God of love he will do what is best for all without fear or favour, that simply follows from being a God of love. If God is going to discriminate on some basis of people's cognitive ability to recognise truth then he is falling well short of being all that he could be.

Agreed.